Somalia Humanitarian Fund (SHF)

Operational Manual

April 2023
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE...............................................................................................................................................3
1.2. GOAL OF THE SHF ..................................................................................................................................................3
1.3. PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................................................................4
1.4. STRATEGIC ADDED VALUE .........................................................................................................................................5
1.5. STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT........................................................................................................................6
1.6. LEARNING .............................................................................................................................................................6
1.7. THE GRANT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ..........................................................................................................................6
2. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 7
2.1. GLOBAL GOVERNANCE .............................................................................................................................................7
2.2. COUNTRY-LEVEL GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................................................................7
2.3. MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................10
2.4. FEEDBACK AND COMPLAINT MECHANISMS .................................................................................................................12
3. EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMING .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.1. INCLUSIVE PROGRAMMING .....................................................................................................................................13
3.2. OTHER AREAS OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMING ..............................................................................................................15
3.3. COMPLEMENTARITY ..............................................................................................................................................17
4. ALLOCATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 17
4.1. ALLOCATION MODALITIES .......................................................................................................................................18
4.1.1. Standard Allocation ................................................................................................................................18
4.1.2. Reserve Allocation...................................................................................................................................21
4.2. FLEXIBLE FUNDING PROVISIONS ...............................................................................................................................24
4.2.1. Pre-positioning of funding for ‘48-hour response’ ..................................................................................24
4.2.2. Contingency budget line .........................................................................................................................25
4.2.3. Project amendments ...............................................................................................................................25
4.2.4. Sub-granting and consortia arrangements .............................................................................................26
4.2.5. Multi-year funding ..................................................................................................................................28
5. RISK MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 29
5.1. RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF SHF .............................................................................................................29
5.2. GLOBAL-LEVEL RISK MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................................................................29
5.3. FUND-LEVEL RISK MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................29
5.4. PARTNER-LEVEL RISK MANAGEMENT (RISK-BASED GRANT MANAGEMENT) .......................................................................31
5.4.1. Eligibility and the assignment of an initial risk level for non-UN partners ..............................................32
5.4.2. Performance Index ..................................................................................................................................36
5.4.3. Operational Modalities ...........................................................................................................................37
5.4.4. Monitoring ..............................................................................................................................................42
5.4.5. Reporting ................................................................................................................................................46
5.4.6. Auditing ..................................................................................................................................................46
5.4.7. Non-compliance measures......................................................................................................................47
5.4.8. Fraud and other incidents involving loss .................................................................................................48
5.4.9. Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse ......................................................................................48
6. ADMINISTRATION OF CBPF FINANCIAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 49
6.1. RATIONALE AND BASIC PRINCIPLES ...........................................................................................................................49
1
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

6.2. PROJECT BUDGETS ................................................................................................................................................50

6.3. GRANT AGREEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................58
6.4. PROJECT AMENDMENTS .........................................................................................................................................59
6.5. AUDIT OF CBPF RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................61
6.6. PROJECT CLOSURE.................................................................................................................................................61
6.7. DEROGATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS ..............................................................................................................................62
7. RESOURCE MOBILIZATION AND COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................................ 63
7.1. RESOURCE MOBILIZATION.......................................................................................................................................63
7.2. VISIBILITY AND COMMUNICATIONS ...........................................................................................................................64
7.3. REPORTING AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS .....................................................................................................................66
8. CLOSURE ........................................................................................................................................................... 66

2
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose and scope
1. The purpose of the Somalia Humanitarian Fund (SHF) Operational Manual is to ensure a coherent and
harmonised approach to the governance and operations of
2. Country-based Pooled Fund (CBPF). This manual sets out arrangements that enhance the quality of the SHF
practices and their accountability to stakeholders, including United Nations (UN) Member States, donors,
humanitarian operational partners (hereafter referred to as ‘partners’), and people affected by disasters and
emergencies.
3. The Operational Manual describes minimum standards for effective and efficient management of the SHF.
They build upon the extensive experience of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
over many years of managing CBPFs in different country contexts.
4. Primary users of this Operational Manual are Humanitarian Financing Units (HFUs), who support and manage
the SHF. The manual also serves as a reference document for partners, as they also describe the roles and
responsibilities of Humanitarian Coordinators (HC); OCHA; partners, including UN agencies, national and
international non-governmental organizations (NGOs);1 coordination platforms, including sectors/clusters; and
other stakeholders. 2
5. The SHF was administered by the Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF) Office. At the time of issuance of this
Operational Manual the administrative role is transferred to OCHA.
6. The SHF functions in a specific context and is managed by OCHA at the country level. While the Funds is are
required to align practices with the CBPF Global Guidelines they retain the flexibility to build upon the minimum
standards and adopt additional provisions to best meet the demands of Somalia that context. Where
humanitarian objectives and operational requirements require deviation from minimum standards for financial
and risk management, the HC may request approval of an exceptional waiver by OCHA’s Executive Officer
(EO) – which will be considered in light of the corresponding justification and risk management implications.
7. This manual should be read in conjunction with the CBPF Global Guidelines, which sets out the global
minimum standards applicable to all CBPFs. This manual deviates only from the CBPF Global Guidelines
when the local context requires.

1.2. Goal of the SHF

8. The SHF is a multi-donor humanitarian financing instrument established by the Emergency Relief Coordinator
(ERC)/ Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs (USG), managed by OCHA Somalia under the
leadership of the HC in consultation with the humanitarian community. The SHF was established in 2010 and
is rooted in the 2005 Humanitarian Reform and the Secretary-General’s report “In larger freedom”,3 which calls
for predictable and flexible humanitarian funding to meet the needs of at-risk communities.
Saving Lives and Alleviating Suffering
9. The core mandate of the SHF is to allocate funding to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human
dignity based on humanitarian needs and priorities identified at the country level. By providing timely,

1
Organizations of the RC/RC Movement can access funding under The SHF. Eligibility and funding applications are handled in the
same manner as for NGOs.
2
The SHF was managed by the Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF) Office. At the time of issuance of this Operational Manual the
administrative role is transferred to OCHA. Orderly closure of the MPTF accounts is taking place once balances are essentially
depleted, and all projects funded have been implemented and closed.
3
UN General Assembly, In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all: report of the Secretary-General, 21
March 2005, A/59/2005.
3
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

coordinated, and principled assistance, the SHF enhances the effectiveness and accountability of the
humanitarian response.
10. The SHF promotes partnership and diversity in humanitarian efforts by supporting a variety of humanitarian
organizations with resources to contribute to the response, and their engagement in Fund governance. The
SHF identifies best-placed partners, be they local, national or international NGOs, the International Red Cross
and Red Crescent (RC/RC) Movement, or UN agencies, to deliver prioritized humanitarian action on the
ground.
Localization
11. While addressing humanitarian needs is the primary goal of the SHF, localization is recognized as a secondary
aim. The SHF is a key vehicle for advancing localization. The SHF is aligned to the Grand Bargain commitment
to making principled humanitarian action “as local as possible and as international as necessary”. This
encompasses:
i. Quantity of funding: The SHF is committed to reach and surpass the global, aggregated benchmark
established under the Grand Bargain in 2016 of providing at least 25 per cent of humanitarian funding
to local and national responders as directly as possible.
ii. Quality funding: The SHF promotes local and national actors, with a commitment to providing
adequate and fair support to accomplish jointly established objectives through constructive
partnership.
iii. Governance: Meaningful engagement of local and national actors in Fund governance and processes
is promoted.
iv. Capacity development: The SHF contributes to developing the performance and capacity of local
and national humanitarian NGOs to expand opportunities to access funding and improve the
assistance delivered. This may take various forms, including providing feedback and mentoring during
routine Fund processes such as capacity assessments, funding applications, project monitoring and
audits, and set-piece training. Funding may occasionally be allocated to dedicated capacity
development initiatives where (i) justified by context-specific criteria, (ii) agreed to by the HC with
support by the AB and (iii) aligned with any broader in-country capacity development efforts.
v. Visibility: The SHF is committed to supporting visibility for local and national actors which are
recipients of SHF resources and to adequately showcase their contributions to the humanitarian
response. The SHF will also seek to provide visibility for the efforts of international partners and
contributing donors to advance localization and related Grand Bargain commitments.

1.3. Principles
12. The SHF is a critical tool to support the delivery of the OCHA’s humanitarian coordination mandate. It receives
softly earmarked funding 4 from donors and allocate it in response to jointly identified priorities through an
inclusive and field-driven decision-making process. The SHF is guided by the fundamental humanitarian
principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. The SHF operates in line with recognized
international standards as determined by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) as well as humanitarian
financing principles as codified under the Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) Initiative and in compliance
with the Core Humanitarian Standard.5
13. OCHA’s approach to the management of the SHF is anchored in the principles of the IASC Transformative

4
In line with Grand Bargain terminology, funding earmarked to a country is denominated as ‘softly earmarked’. In the case of The SHF
donors ‘softly earmark’ their contributions to a given country, however the use of the resources within that country is unearmarked and
determined through country-level processes.
5
For further information refer to: https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/.
4
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

Agenda6 which stresses the importance of providing predictable, timely and consistent resources for principled
humanitarian action. This is in line with the SHF’s primary aim of enabling a life-saving response. The SHF
plays a key role in contributing to the delivery of Grand Bargain commitments, including to localization, reduced
earmarking, and harmonized reporting, among others.
14. In addition to the fundamental humanitarian principles, the SHF is grounded in five specific operating
principles:
i. Inclusiveness: A broad range of partner organizations (UN agencies, local, national and
international NGOs, the RC/RC) participate in SHF processes and may receive funding to
implement projects addressing identified priority needs.
ii. Flexibility: The programmatic focus and funding priorities of the SHF are set at the country level
and may shift rapidly, especially in volatile humanitarian contexts. The SHF adapts rapidly to
changing priorities and works with partners to identify appropriate solutions to address
humanitarian needs in the most effective way.
iii. Timeliness: The SHF allocates funds to save lives as humanitarian needs emerge or escalate.
iv. Efficiency: Management of the SHF enables efficient coverage and prioritization of strategic
responses to identified humanitarian needs. The SHF seeks to employ cost-efficient and context-
appropriate processes, including effective and fast disbursement mechanisms, minimizing
transaction costs while operating in a transparent and accountable manner.
v. Risk management: The SHF manages risks at the Fund and partner levels. It applies a range of
accountability tools and measures to monitor partner capacity and performance.

1.4. Strategic added value

15. The SHF is a strategic tool to support the HC in delivering their vision for principled, prioritized and needs-
based humanitarian action in the local context. While providing life-saving humanitarian response and
enhancing localization, the SHF is not intended to fill funding gaps but add value by being catalytic, promoting
system change and bringing about improvements in the way the humanitarian community responds. The SHF
fosters innovation and new approaches that can improve the quality of assistance, and also contributes to
improving the humanitarian response by promoting learning.
16. To enhance the strategic nature of the SHF and articulate its distinctive added value, the HC, in consultation
with the ABs, will develop a Vision Paper. The paper will set out the way in which the SHF intends to make a
difference in the Somalia operating environment and funding context, shaping the humanitarian response while
taking into account other funding mechanisms that exist. The paper will also outline key themes, including
localization and selected effective programming areas, 7 where the SHF intends to make particular
investments, consider specific innovations and demonstrate change. The Vision Paper will be reviewed
annually and evolve in line with global and country-level developments.
17. Allocations are aligned with the SHF’s Vision Paper and conducted under an allocation-specific strategy, which
sets out the strategic impact that is sought from the allocation and explains the approach to the allocation.
Allocations are intended to advance priority humanitarian strategies and are not intended to “fill funding gaps”.
Allocations take place against the backdrop of Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and other collective
planning initiatives as part of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC), and fund a prioritized portion of these,
as determined by the HC in consultation with partners in Somalia. The SHF ensures that the humanitarian

6
Building on the Transformative Agenda, the need for and importance of providing predictable, timely and consistent resources towards
principled humanitarian action is reiterated in the IASC Guidance on Strengthening Participation, Representation and Leadership of
Local and National Actors in IASC Humanitarian Coordination Mechanisms (https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/operational-
response/iasc-guidance-strengthening-participation-representation-and-leadership-local-and-national-actors).
7
For further information on effective programming, refer to chapter 3. While the Funds will consider all of the priorities in their work, the
Vision Paper allows for an articulation of selected priority areas that the Fund will champion through innovation and learning.
5
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

system gives proper attention to and enables meaningful participation by the most at-risk populations and are
vehicles to advance global priorities to improve the quality of assistance and ensure the best use of donor
investments.
18. Recognizing the multi-faceted nature of humanitarian needs experienced by affected people, the SHF
prioritizes multi‐sectoral and integrated programming to optimize impact. In some circumstances, where there
is a particular need, a sectoral intervention may be warranted. Emphasis remains on the strategic and
operational impact that the SHF has through each allocation, as evidenced by the collective results of projects
and the catalytic effect that allocations have on humanitarian operations.
19. Given that the SHF operates in the same contexts as CERF, OCHA and partners are committed to ensuring
that the two funding instruments are used jointly and strategically for the greatest overall impact under the in-
country leadership of the HC. Complementarity between the SHF, CERF and other funding streams, globally
and at the country level, is derived from recognising and building on the respective comparative advantages
of each mechanism and their unique value addition. 8

1.5. Strategic and operational impact

20. The impact of the SHF is in their contribution to saving lives and restoring dignity, in line with their humanitarian
mandate. They do not act alone but as part of wider efforts, contributing directly through the projects and
activities funded and indirectly by influencing system enhancements that improve the quality of, and add value
to, collective humanitarian response. The SHF cannot aspire to directly measure the number of lives saved,
which is problematic methodologically and in terms of resource requirements.
21. At the time of issuance of the Global Guidelines, work is ongoing to develop a clearer framework for articulating
strategic and operational impact, which may include different initiatives such as conducting After-Action
Reviews (AARs) for allocations.

1.6. Learning
22. A commitment to learning and sharing lessons underpins CBPFs’ efforts, supporting continuous improvement
and opportunities for innovation. The approach is reflected in numerous provisions in these Operational
Manual, which themselves draw on recent learning, contemporary best practices in managing the Funds and
the disposition to innovate. The CBPFs pursues a range of initiatives to compile and promote best practices
and ensure that the evolution of policy and guidance is evidence-based. Please refer to the Global Guidelines,
Section 1.6, Page 6.

1.7. The Grant Management System

23. The SHF processes and operations at the headquarters (HQ) and country-level are managed on the Grant
Management System (GMS).9 The system was developed and is maintained internally by OCHA to ensure
that the Fund SHF management aligns with best practices and standards. As such, the system will continue
to evolve following the introduction of the Global Guidelines to reflect its updated provisions.
24. The GMS is a mandatory tool for the SHF to ensure efficient management of all operations, including partner
registration and the eligibility process, allocation processes and throughout the grant cycle. The system can
integrate with external and internal UN systems without manual intervention from stakeholders.
25. The advantages of the GMS include i) facilitating partners’ interaction with the CBPFs through a standard
platform; ii) promoting efficiency, effectiveness and transparency through the ability to monitor the speed and
the quality of different processes; iii) supporting risk management, allowing real-time monitoring of partner

8
For further information on complementarity between The SHF and CERF, refer to chapter 3.

6
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

performance and capacity, including compliance with statutory requirements; iv) harmonizing business
processes while catering to the special needs of each Fund; and v) strengthening OCHA’s data analysis and
information management capacity through the publicly accessible DataHub platform. 10
26. OCHA has launched a new common GMS platform (oneGMS) for the SHF and CERF to enhance
harmonization of portfolio data. The new platform will support project proposals, narrative and financial
reporting, project revisions and closure processes across the two OCHA-managed Pooled Funds. It will
enhance OCHA’s capability to coordinate project review, monitoring and reporting, track process timelines and
partner performance, and promote accountability in humanitarian response.

2. Governance and management

2.1. Global governance
Emergency Relief Coordinator / Under-Secretary-General
27. The ERC/USG holds authority over and is accountable for all CBPFs. The ERC/USG makes decisions on the
establishment and closure of Funds and monitors the performance of each Fund through the CBPF Section at
OCHA Headquarters. The ERC/USG issued the Global Guidelines and monitors compliance with the
provisions and any other guidance that may apply. For further information on global governance roles,
including the Pooled Fund Working Group, CBPF-NGO Dialogue Platform, OCHA Executive Office and the
OCHA Pooled Fund management brand please refer to the CBPF Global Guidelines Chapter Two.

2.2. Country-level governance

Humanitarian Coordinator
28. The HC acts as the custodian of the SHF on behalf of the USG/ERC. The HC has a range of specific
responsibilities in relation to the Fund (see below), and ensures the Fund delivers against its key objectives
and is managed in accordance with this Operational Manual. The HC is supported by the AB and OCHA and
engages with the full range of SHF stakeholders, including donors and partners.

29. The HC’s specific responsibilities include:

i. Lead the process at the country level of establishing and closing the SHF;
ii. Define the vision for the Fund, highlighting how the Fund will promote and support the
humanitarian response in the country in line with the strategic priorities for the SHF;
iii. Lead country-level resource mobilization activities for the Fund, and encourage the Advisory
Board to contribute to resource mobilization efforts;
iv. Approve and lead the review and periodic update of the Operational Manual;
v. Define the strategic focus and amount of funding for each allocation, including the articulation of
a Strategic Allocation Statement (hereafter referred to as Strategic Statement) setting out its intent
and added value and serving as a basis to assess its success;
vi. Lead efforts to assess the strategic impact of each allocation, in accordance with the allocation
strategy;
vii. Ensure complementary use of SHF funding with other funding sources, including CERF;11
viii. Make final decisions to define the strategic focus and amounts of allocations, taking into
consideration the advice of the Advisory Board. This responsibility is exclusive to the HC and

11
For further information on complementarity between the SHF and CERF refer to chapter 3.
7
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

cannot be delegated.
ix. Make final funding decisions, approve projects and sign corresponding Grant Agreements;
x. Request exceptional waivers of minimum standards for financial and risk management after
considering the merits of the justification and any related risks, for review and approval by the
OCHA EO;
xi. Ensure that key governance entities of the SHF – the AB and the Review Committee(s) – operate
in accordance with the provisions of this Operational Manual;
xii. Endorse the nomination of AB members by their respective constituencies and exercise the
prerogative to nominate additional observer members. Convening and chairing AB meetings;
xiii. Undertake periodic risk analyses, including audit findings, with a focus on lessons learned, and
developing corresponding risk management plans and mitigation measures;
xiv. Issue the Fund’s annual report, and other reporting that may be required.
Advisory Board (AB)
30. The SHF AB12 supports the HC in articulating the strategic vision of the Fund, ensuring the strategic nature of
individual allocations, and overseeing Fund performance. The AB has a consultative role, ensuring that the
HC is informed by the views of donors, UN agencies, the NGO community and relevant technical experts. The
SHF AB is comprised of:
• HC (Chairperson);
• OCHA Head of Office;
• 3 UN agencies;
• 6 NGOs: Three (3) international, three (3) national, including one (1) representative
of the Somalia NGO consortium;
• 3 SHF contributing donor representatives

31. The AB’s responsibilities include four key areas:

i. Strategy: The AB advises the HC on how global policies and priorities can be best translated into
country-level strategies, as reflected in the HC’s vision for the Fund and the Operational Manual.
It also advises the HC on Allocation Strategies, discusses funding priorities and how the
deployment of resources can maximise the added value of the pooled funding mechanism. The
AB advises and supports the HC in strategic resource mobilization efforts, advocating for the Fund
as a key instrument to address critical needs and promote system improvements;
ii. Risk Management: 13 The AB supports the HC in undertaking periodic risk analyses and
developing commensurate risk management plans (see chapter 5 on Risk Management) as a key
element of risk-sharing;
iii. Transparency: The AB supports the HC in monitoring Fund processes to ensure that all
stakeholders are treated fairly and that the management of the Fund abides by established
principles and guidelines;
iv. Performance: The AB supports the HC in monitoring and reviewing operations, providing advice
to optimise performance in line with the Common Performance Framework.

12
For further information, please refer to the Global Guidelines, Global Guidelines, Annex 1 AB TORS
13
For further information on Risk Management refer to chapter 5.
8
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

32. The composition of the AB is determined by the HC in consultation with the humanitarian community, including
contributing donors, UN agencies,14 national NGOs and international NGOs. AB members are nominated by
their constituencies in a transparent and participatory manner. Their nomination is endorsed by the HC.
33. The AB should ensure genuine, equitable and vocal participation of all four constituencies. To ensure efficient
proceedings, the composition of the AB is limited to a maximum of 12 constituency representatives (i.e., a
maximum of three representatives from each of the four mentioned constituencies). Equal gender
representation should be sought.
34. The AB members make a commitment to attend all Board meetings, to provide comments by email, as
required, and are authorized to make decisions during the AB meetings.
35. The Board members are elected for two years; tenure is renewable, and representation should be at the
country representative or head of country office level. Board members participate in their individual and
technical capacities; they do not represent the interest of their agency or broader constituencies.
36. Additional Observer members may be co-opted at the prerogative of the HC to enrich discussions and analysis.
Observer members may include a non-contributing donor, or other reference people, to improve the quality
and transparency of decision-making processes and overall coordination of the humanitarian response. The
AB works on the basis of consensus.
37. Fund-recipient organizations with pending non-compliance concerns cannot be members of the AB. If such
concerns emerge during their tenure, the HC should seek their resignation pending resolution.
38. In support of inclusive programming areas, the AB must include representation of gender and disability
inclusion expertise. When possible, experts can be identified from among donor, UN, International non-
governmental organization (INGO) or National non-governmental organization (NNGO) constituency
representatives. Alternatively, experts can be co-opted as additional observer members of the AB.
39. In support of the localization commitments identified in the Grand Bargain and in line with OCHA’s corporate
Gender Action Plan in place at the time of issuance of the guidelines to promote the agency of local women’s
organisations in the governance of CBPFs, at least one of the three representatives of the NNGO constituency
will be a representative of a national women-led15 or women’s rights16 organization (WLO/WRO).
40. AB membership should rotate on a regular and staggered basis, normally with 24-month tenures. 17
Membership is at senior leadership level (for example, Heads of agencies, senior humanitarian officials
contributing donors etc.). To ensure continuation, a smooth handover between rotating AB members should
be facilitated.
41. Other participants in AB proceedings are the OCHA Head of Office, responsible for the management of the
Fund, and the OCHA Head of HFU, acting as the AB secretariat.
Review Committees
42. In SHF allocation processes, project proposals pass through two types of review: i) project vetting to identify
and prioritize project proposals considered best suited to deliver the Allocation Strategy, and ii) final technical
and financial review to ensure those pre-selected project proposals are of the highest possible quality before

14
These should be humanitarian mandated UN agencies and may include cluster/sector lead agencies or those with other leadership
roles in country level humanitarian coordination arrangements.
15
A WLO is defined as an organization with a humanitarian mandate/mission that is (i) governed or directed by women or; (ii) whose
leadership is principally made up of women, demonstrated by 50 per cent or more occupying senior leadership positions.
16
A WRO is defined as (i) an organization that self-identifies as a woman’s rights organization with primary focus on advancing gender
equality, women’s empowerment and human rights; or (ii) an organization that has, as part of its mission statement, the advancement of
women’s/girls’ interests and rights (or where ‘women,’ ‘girls’, ‘gender’ or local language equivalents are prominent in their mission
statement); or (iii) an organization that has, as part of its mission statement or objectives, to challenge and transform gender inequalities
(unjust rules), unequal power relations and promoting positive social norms.
17
In exceptional circumstances tenure may be renewed by approval of the HC, for example where important for ‘sequencing’ of
rotations in order to ensure continuity and cohesion of AB proceedings.
9
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

final approval by the HC. Review Committees are only required for the first of these. For the second, the SHF
involves relevant subject matter or technical experts, as required. The Review process should be set up in a
way that achieves the overall objective, while ensuring speed and minimizing transaction costs.
43. For project vetting purposes, the Review Committees are responsible for assessing the design of the project
proposals and recommending for funding those which are deemed to best support the delivery of the Allocation
Strategy, based on criteria outlined therein. Review Committees should conduct efficient project reviews,
minimizing transaction costs, while operating in a transparent and accountable manner.
44. The Review Committees should be established by the sectors/clusters and the HFU through a consultative
process with the in-country Somalia coordination mechanisms, such as sectors/clusters HFU, and should may
include subject matter experts. They should ensure balanced representation of UN agencies, national NGOs
and international NGOs. To mitigate potential conflict of interest and perceptions of bias, representatives of
organizations applying for funding shall not exert any influence on the review of project proposals submitted
by their organizations. This includes scoring and other general discussions about such project proposals.18
Independent subject matter experts may be co-opted as observers to support the Review Committees in
making judgements on the technical and other specific parts of the proposal and budget.19
45. The HFU chairs the Review Committees and takes part in decision-making, supporting the committees in
discharging their functions, and ensures a fair and transparent review. The chairing role may be exceptionally
assigned by the HFU to another member of the committee, for example, to expedite the work of multiple
committees taking place in parallel. The assigned chair remains accountable to the HFU for due process.
46. Review Committees should be established taking into consideration the strategic priorities outlined in the
Allocation Strategy and can therefore be established by targeted population, thematic area, geographical
prioritization or sector, among others, to promote an integrated and multi-sectoral approach.

2.3. Management
OCHA Head of Office
47. The OCHA Head of Office (HoO) is responsible for the operation of the Fund in support of the HC, and its
effective management according to this Operational Manual. Responsibilities include:
i. Participate in AB proceedings, responsible for the management of the Fund;
ii. Support the development of the HC’s Vision Paper for the Fund;
iii. Support the development of Allocation Strategies and the articulation of a Strategic Statement for
each allocation;
iv. Promote complementarity among humanitarian funding mechanisms, including the SHF, CERF20
and other sources of funding;
v. Assess the impact of allocations in relation to their original strategic intent, in collaboration with
stakeholders;
vi. Ensure that OCHA fulfils its accountability requirements, including risk management;21
vii. Lead the development and implementation of the SHF resource mobilization activities while
promoting donor investments more widely and increasing visibility of the Fund;
viii. Support the management of cases of partner misconduct, including incidents of fraud and SEA,
in line with Standard Operating Procedures;
ix. Supervise the OCHA HFU, ensuring it is fully integrated and coordinated with other Units of the

18 Cluster coordinators are considered as representatives of the organization in which they are hosted and as such shall not exert
influence on the review of proposals submitted by their host organizations.
19
Subject matter experts may include for example gender, GBV, disability, protection, Cash and Voucher Assistance, and PSEA.
20
For further information on complementarity between the SHF and CERF, refer to chapter 3.
21
For further information on Risk management, refer to chapter 5.
10
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

OCHA Country Office (CO) and sub-offices and ensuring that Fund processes are streamlined
and efficient;
x. Ensure that the HFU is resourced adequately and overseeing the recruitment and development of
staff members;
xi. Prepare the HFU cost plans, inform the AB on them, submit them for approval to OAD in
consultation with the CBPF Section and monitor their implementation.
Humanitarian Financing Unit
48. The HFU is responsible for the daily management of all programmatic and financial aspects of the CBPF on
behalf of the HC and under the supervision of the OCHA HoO, in coordination with the CBPF Section. The
OCHA HFU executes HC decisions and organizes the process of allocating funds and overseeing their use
according to these Operational Manual and the corresponding country-specific Operational Manual.
49. Core functions of the HFU are allocation management, including the facilitation of prioritisation, strategy
development and promotion of effective programming; monitoring; financial management; partnership and risk
management; and communication and reporting. Key responsibilities include:
i. Ensure compliance with minimum standards stipulated in this Operational Manual;
ii. Serve as secretariat for the AB;
iii. Advise and support the HC and OCHA HoO on Fund strategies and any other policy matters
related to the SHF;
iv. Advise the HC in the development of the HC’s vision for the Fund and Allocation Strategy;
v. Support the OCHA HoO in ensuring complementary use of SHF resources with other funding
sources, including the CERF;22
vi. Oversee the entire funding cycle from the launch of an allocation to project closure;
vii. Support partners throughout the allocation process and promote a feedback system for continuous
learning. Facilitate and train stakeholders on the use of GMS and DataHub;
viii. Support and advise the HC and OCHA HoO in the development and implementation of the
Accountability Framework;
ix. Coordinate and facilitate capacity and performance assessment, risk management, monitoring
and reporting, and external audits;
x. Prepare the SHF Annual Report;
xi. Engage with SHF donors and coordinate with other humanitarian donors in the country;
xii. Support the development and implementation of the resource mobilization action plan in
coordination with the HC, OCHA HoO and OCHA headquarters (DRS);
xiii. Produce reports, analyses and other documents as necessary to support decision-making,
coordination, communication and resource mobilization activities with the support of the CBPF
Section. This may include funding updates, monthly reports, fact sheets, allocation dashboards,
talking points, key messages, mission briefing kits, among others;
xiv. Facilitate public information sharing with all stakeholders. This includes ensuring that relevant
documentation is available on the SHF webpage www.unocha.org/somalia/shf.
Head of Humanitarian Financing Unit
50. The Head of HFU acts as Fund Manager of the SHF, under the management of the HoO and in support of the
HC and has additional responsibilities in relation to OCHA’s core humanitarian financing function. The Head
of HFU is responsible to, among others:
i. Advise the HC on CBPF management and CERF processes, in conformity with prevailing policies
and guidelines and aligned with the country/regional context;

22
For further information on complementarity between The SHF and CERF, refer to chapter 3.
11
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

ii. Liaise as necessary with relevant OCHA HQ entities, including OAD and HFRMD;
iii. Coordinate with all stakeholders, such as sectors/clusters, donors and humanitarian partners,
particularly local and national NGOs and networks;
iv. Assist the HC and the OCHA HoO in preparing and facilitating the AB meetings and other strategic
processes;
v. Manage, oversee and support SHF and CERF allocations;
vi. Facilitate the development of the HC’s Vision Paper for the Fund, including the integration of
effective programming areas;
vii. Oversee proper financial management and auditing process of funded projects;
viii. Support the OCHA HoO in ensuring the implementation of applicable global policies and
guidelines and advise the HC and the OCHA HoO on compliance and risk management, including
partners’ performance;
ix. Monitor the Fund performance as per Common Performance Framework;
x. Ensure that the SHF Operational Manual is updated;
xi. Oversee monitoring and reporting processes of projects and systematically provide information on
project status to the HC, the OCHA HoO, donors and the AB;
xii. Ensure that periodic analyses of humanitarian financing information, as well as funding trends and
requirements, are conducted and updated, and data from all relevant sources are gathered;
xiii. Ensure strong relationships with contributing donors and develop key strategic partnerships with
new donors;
xiv. Promote synergies with other sources of funding, including humanitarian, development and
peacebuilding funding, among others;
xv. Lead public communication and advocacy on the role and added value of the Fund;
xvi. Plan staffing and operational requirements and corresponding budget for approval by the HC, the
HoO and the EO;
xvii. Liaise with relevant OCHA HQ departments;
xviii. Support the HoO in the preparation of the HFU cost plan and in monitoring its implementation.

2.4. Feedback and complaint mechanisms

51. The SHF has put in place a formal mechanism that allows stakeholders to provide feedback on Fund
processes, raising complaints if they feel that due process has not been followed. Feedback and compliant
mechanisms are also one of the channels to report concerns of financial or sexual misconduct, or any concerns
related to the misuse of resources or other misconduct.23
52. The feedback can be channeled to the SHF accountability team through phone number +252 613661199 by
way of direct call, voice recording, SMS or WhatsApp.
53. Stakeholder with complaints regarding the SHF processes or decisions can contact the SHF Manager
([email protected]).
54. If concerns remain or if they can for any reason not be raised with the SHF Manager, stakeholders can bring
it to the attention of OCHA Somalia senior management or through the anonymous email shf-
[email protected].
55. Feedback and complaints will be reviewed by the OCHA HoO, since the HFU may be implicated in concerns
raised. The OCHA Somalia country Office will compile, review, address and – if necessary – raise issues to
the HC, who then takes the decision on appropriate action and ensures follow-up.
56. The HoO will ensure that issues of confidentiality are managed appropriately. While the details of particular
feedback or complaints may need to be managed confidentially to promote confidence in the mechanism and
protect its users, periodic overviews of the types and trends of feedback and complaints received may be

23
For further information on PSEA see chapter 5.
12
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

discussed by the AB with a view to promote learning and the continual improvement of Fund governance and
operations.

3. Effective programming

57. In line with the report of the 2019 CBPF Global Evaluation, this chapter outlines programming areas for the
SHF to provide strategic added value, bring about system change and stimulate innovation and transformation
in the Funds and the wider humanitarian system (see section 1.4). The guidance provided in this chapter does
not intend to replace or reproduce more detailed reference materials available - rather, it outlines the
importance that CBPFs give to each of these areas, highlighting and moderating expectations of what the
CBPF can achieve and how. Strategically (at the Fund level) these areas will be further reflected in HCs’ Vision
Papers, Allocation Strategies, AB deliberations, the work of Review Committees and Fund-level tracking and
reporting. Operationally (at the project level), design quality vis-à-vis the areas will influence project selection,
monitoring, and reporting. CBPFs are committed to learning and sharing practices for effective programming.

3.1. Inclusive programming

Strengthening Accountability to Affected People

58. Through partners, collective platforms and coordination mechanisms, the SHF facilitates the participation of
affected people in all phases of the project cycle and empowers communities to influence and determine their
own priorities. The SHF promotes organizational and collective feedback mechanisms across the humanitarian
landscape to collect and act upon the voices and expressed priorities of affected people across gender, age,
disability and other diversity factors. All people, with and without disabilities, should be able to access the
mechanisms to improve the quality and appropriateness of assistance provided.
59. In project proposals, partners are expected to specify how affected people, specifically community members,
have been included in the design and will be consulted throughout the project cycle, including through
organizational and collective mechanisms, to ensure participation and transparency. More specifically, SHF-
funded projects adhere to AAP quality standards.24 Further, partners are expected to create new or identify
and promote existing, accessible mechanisms to enable communities to provide feedback on the response,
including reporting serious breaches of accountability such as SEA and other sensitive complaints. For these
channels and mechanisms, partners should ensure two-way communication.
60. Partners shall develop with affected people services and information materials for affected people. All people,
including persons with disabilities, should have access to the information throughout all levels of the process.
In turn, affected people can give feedback to partners as well as inform the appropriateness of projects
undertaken by partners. This feedback should be taken into consideration and lead to programme adaptation
where appropriate.
61. Throughout the SHF project cycle, the participation in community engagement and accountability mechanisms
of those most impacted as a result of compound and complex risks and systemic, structural, and attitudinal
barriers, amongst them specifically women and girls and those with disabilities, is required. Based on collected
feedback, project modifications should be facilitated. Monitoring and reporting must include (i) the assessment
of the level of participation and access to information and methods to provide feedback; and (ii)
templates/frameworks adequately reflecting age, gender and diversity factors, and using appropriate
terminology and indicators.
Promoting the Centrality of Protection

62. In line with the IASC Policy on Protection in Humanitarian Action, protection is defined as “all activities aimed
at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the relevant

24
This includes the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability: https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/the-standard.
13
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

bodies of law (i.e., International Humanitarian Law)”.25

63. The SHF advocates and supports actions that promote the centrality of protection, reducing and preventing
the exposure of adults and children to risks, and ensuring respect for the rights of individuals by all responsible
stakeholders. It promotes the centrality of protection as a priority in humanitarian assistance, including by
supporting analysis to identify the most significant protection risks affecting different parts of the population
and drivers of those risks and building mechanisms to monitor protection risks across sectors and humanitarian
operations. The SHF supports preventative and responsive action to address priority risks as defined by the
humanitarian community, combining programming and advocacy toward common objectives.
64. The commitment to the centrality of protection is affirmed in all stages of the Fund cycle, with contextual details
on protection considerations provided in all Allocation Strategies. The SHF encourages ‘protection integration,’
meaning the attainment of clearly articulated protection objectives (in line with the HRP or other strategic and
policy documents) through the work of partners in all sectors, including sectors other than Protection.
65. Protection is included as a scoring criterion during the project proposal review process and therefore influences
the selection of projects for funding, with protection experts involved in assessing the soundness and relevance
of their design. The SHF encourages collaboration with Protection Standby Capacity Project (ProCap) advisers
during strategic prioritization and project review.
Responding to Gender-Based Violence

66. The SHF strengthens the response to Gender-Based Violence (GBV). In disasters and emergencies, women
and girls are typically amongst the most at risk and marginalised and can face increased vulnerabilities,
including additional risks of GBV. The SHF builds partnerships with gender, GBV and protection experts to
better inform programming to address and mitigate GBV, exploring opportunities for collaboration with Gender
in Humanitarian Action Working Groups (GiHA WGs), the Gender Reference Group (GRG) and national and
local gender, GBV working groups and other relevant structures to provide technical support to country-level
processes.
67. The SHF integrates the response to GBV in all phases of the Fund cycle by systematically considering it a
priority in Allocation Strategies and in individual projects. Scorecards used to recommend projects for funding
will reflect GBV considerations. Quantitative and qualitative data/indicators are required in project proposals
and in monitoring and reporting templates.
Addressing gender equality

68. The SHF promotes gender equality, contributing to equal opportunities and equal access to assistance for all
affected people.
69. The SHF, where feasible, include dedicated gender expertise and promotes gender-balanced representation
in strategic-level decision-making processes, including in deliberations of ABs and Review Committees.
70. The SHF ensures sound gender analysis and the systematic integration of gender in the development of all
Allocation Strategies and funding decisions, with appropriate reflection on and increased visibility of the diverse
circumstances of women and girls during the prioritization of needs and response.
71. The SHF makes use of the Gender with Age Marker (GAM) and other appropriate tools throughout the project
cycle, including in funding applications and reporting. Projects are designed, implemented, monitored, and
reported on considering the specific needs and constraints faced by women, girls, boys and men,
mainstreaming gender in proposals reflected in the consistent collection of gender and age disaggregated data
and information throughout the whole project cycle.
72. Project Review Committees include gender as an assessment criterion during project appraisal. Support of a
Gender and/or GBV Advisor or other gender experts may be incorporated to ensure that gender analyses are
at the core of the needs-identification, that the GAM is accurately reflected, and that there is necessary capacity

25
For further details please refer to https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/2020-
11/IASC%20Policy%20on%20Protection%20in%20Humanitarian%20Action%2C%202016.pdf.
14
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

and resources allocated to address gender and GBV issues during project implementation.
73. The SHF supports the engagement of local and national WLO/WRO. OCHA acknowledges that WLO/WRO
can be best placed to play critical roles in crisis response and community empowerment. As part of enhancing
localization, the SHF encourages access to funding for WLOs/WROs to provide needs-based and life-saving
assistance and commits to dedicated capacity development of WLO/WRO. In line with OCHA’s corporate
Gender Action Plan in place at the time of issuance of the guidelines, the SHF commits that by the end of 2022
and going forward at least 25 per cent of national NGOs that receive training on CBPF guidelines and
procedures are WLO/WRO.
Including Persons with Disabilities

74. The SHF supports persons with disabilities and strengthen disability inclusion in all phases of the Fund cycle,
systematically considering disability inclusion as a priority in Allocation Strategies and in the selection of project
proposals. Scorecards used to recommend projects for funding will reflect disability considerations. The use
of disability-inclusion language and disaggregated quantitative and qualitative data are required in project
proposals and in monitoring and reporting.26
75. Persons with disabilities shall be consulted at the project level, and the intersectionality of disability with other
vulnerabilities should be taken into consideration for the respective context of the response.
76. In line with the IASC Guidelines on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action and the
UN Disability Inclusion Strategy (UNDIS), CBPFs aim to foster full and effective participation and inclusion of
persons with disabilities. Funds promote such participation through more flexible procedures and, where
necessary, increase accessibility measures. Disability experts can participate in CBPF decision-making,
including all AB deliberations, to sensitize Fund leadership on the importance of disability inclusion. These
disability experts are identified from within the humanitarian community or in the disability rights community in
the respective country or internationally.
77. CBPFs makes efforts to increase the involvement of Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs)27 in all
processes, including through training/capacity development, facilitation of the application process, participation
in project review committees, and the use of sub-granting arrangements, especially where OPDs have not yet
completed capacity assessment.
78. SHF partners commit to non-discrimination towards persons with disabilities. The eligibility process will require
each partner to validate this commitment through an explicit, written affirmation.
79. OCHA Country Offices may establish relationships with relevant national and regional disability groups and
networks in relation to CBPF processes

3.2. Other areas of effective programming

80. This section reflects other aspects of good programming to be incorporated where feasible. Actions may vary,
dependent on the diverse context and programming focus of the Funds.
Advancing Cash and Voucher Assistance
81. In line with the Grand Bargain, the SHF promotes Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA), prioritizing its use
across the project portfolio where feasible and appropriate to address needs.
82. CVA, particularly when provided via unrestricted cash, can offer flexibility, dignity and efficiency to people
affected by crises, commensurate with their diverse needs. As such, the SHF specifically encourages the use
of multi-purpose cash (MPC) to meet basic needs and complement sectoral responses where appropriate.

26
The SHF performance on disability inclusion is expected to be aligned with the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy (UNDIS).
27
Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) should be rooted in and committed to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD) and should fully respect the principles and rights that it affirms. OPDs must be led, directed and governed by
persons with disabilities. A clear majority of their memberships should be persons who have disabilities.
15
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

The use of CVA and MPC is based on thorough analysis, and the feasibility of either in-kind or CVA must be
considered for all projects, taking into consideration country-specific conditions and associated risks. Where
feasible, CVA should be considered as the default modality.
83. The SHF promotes the increased scale of CVA through setting quantitative and qualitative targets and by
ensuring that CVA is considered in the development of Allocation Strategies and in the selection of projects.
As a general approach, the SHF asks that if assistance is not provided via cash and vouchers, that partners
(at the project level) articulate the rationale and explain ‘why not”. As relevant, CVA is reflected as a criterion
in scorecards which guide the review and selection of projects. Project reporting templates track and report on
the usage of CVA, including MPC.
84. To ensure the coherent use of CVA, the SHF works closely and consistently with Somalia coordination
mechanisms and, in particular, the Somalia cash working group (CWG).
Improving humanitarian access

85. The SHF contributes to ensuring humanitarian access, as a prerequisite to effective humanitarian action. They
facilitate and coordinate humanitarian partners’ efforts to establish and maintain access, and to overcome
factors that inhibit humanitarian access, including bureaucratic restrictions, physical infrastructure, and safety
and security. Safe and unimpeded access is critical to establish operations, assess needs, monitor the delivery
of assistance, move goods and personnel where needed, and enable affected people to benefit from
assistance and access basic services safely.
86. When used strategically, the SHF can help improve access to new locations and population groups, promote
cooperation between authorities and humanitarian actors, and build trust with the communities. The SHF helps
sustain and/or improve humanitarian access by prioritising this in Allocation Strategies. Operationally, this will
result in the SHF supporting relevant activities, locations and partners; as well as funding access-enabling
projects that contribute to a safe and conducive operating environment. Prioritisation takes place in
coordination with relevant experts on access data and analysis.
87. The SHF helps identify alternative solutions to access people in need and/or enable people in need to access
services by promoting cash assistance, localization and innovation. They contribute to creating a more
systematic and coherent response to identified access impediments and help roll out agreed access strategies.
Promoting Anticipatory Approaches, including Anticipatory Action Frameworks

88. The SHF promotes and encourages anticipatory approaches, which can mitigate the impact of predictable
shocks and allow the humanitarian community to reach affected people with humanitarian aid more effectively
with speed, dignity and efficiency. In many contexts, occurrences such as perennial flooding, seasonal cholera
outbreaks and recurrent droughts are predictable, and typically inform allocation strategies and funding
decisions. Through their unique positioning within the humanitarian landscape, the SHF may play a catalytic
role in supporting collective anticipatory approaches.
89. An area for further exploration is the extent to which CBPFs may support the formulation and implementation
of more formal collective anticipatory action frameworks or other in-country mechanisms and capabilities for
anticipatory action. The extent to which funding from the CBPF is considered appropriate and strategic will
take into consideration the wider context, including other humanitarian needs and available resources. At the
time of issuance of the Global Guidelines Operational Manual, a pilot initiative is consolidating experience and
learning around the engagement of Funds in collective anticipatory action frameworks, including in
complementarity with existing CERF initiatives. CBPFs. The SHF could, for instance, provide complementary,
pre-agreed, anticipatory financing to frontline responders within collective anticipatory action frameworks, with
a focus particularly on local and national NGOs. Discussions of HC with Advisory Boards are required to
understand the extent to which these approaches are possible and advisable given other demands on CBPF
funding, and also to better understand the unique value that the CBPFs.

16
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

3.3. Complementarity
90. The SHF works in complementarity with other sources of humanitarian funding and stakeholders across the
wider humanitarian effort. This includes complementarity between OCHA’s Pooled Fund mechanisms, with
other humanitarian Funds, and with development and peacebuilding funding streams.
91. The HC’s leadership and decision making ensure complementarity at country-level, translated throughout the
CBPF cycle, including in Allocations Strategies, project design and implementation, monitoring and reporting.
92. Ensuring complementarity with the OCHA-managed CERF is a key objective to maximize effectiveness,
advance innovative, strategic considerations and strengthen coherence in delivering results for affected
communities. SHF and CERF processes inform respective programming, optimizing engagement and working
relations with relevant stakeholders and coordination platforms, collaborating in amplification of messaging,
and contributing to mobilizing broader support for a common agenda.
93. The SHF also promotes the collaboration and complementarity between humanitarian, development, and
peacebuilding funding more broadly (commonly referred to as the nexus) by encouraging, and where possible,
catalysing coordination and informal cooperation among relevant actors, donors and other funding
mechanisms, including:
i. Share information on Allocation Strategies and potential partners with development and
peacebuilding actors, seek advice at the strategic allocation level and compare approaches and
situation analysis.
ii. When reviewing projects, request input from development and peacebuilding experts during the
technical review on specific projects, as relevant, and consider including specific criteria on the
nexus in the project proposal prioritization scorecard, including but not limited to conflict sensitivity,
the Do No Harm principle and resilience building.
iii. Maintain regular informal contact on the situation and needs in the country, inviting representatives
from other funds to attend AB meetings when relevant issues are discussed.
iv. Engage with other funds to deliver inputs, such as training, where fund staff may offer relevant
technical input.
v. Explore ways to enhance collaboration or to leverage funding from development and
peacebuilding funds in complementarity, where there is potential to use it to deliver principled
humanitarian response, or vice versa.

4. Allocations

94. The SHF provides the HC with two modalities to allocate funds to humanitarian partners and projects: i) the
Standard Allocation (see section 4.1) and ii) the Reserve Allocation (see section 4.2). The HC, in consultation
with the AB, determines the appropriate use of the modalities given the context and the strategic intent of any
given allocation, as well as considering process efficiency and transaction costs.
95. Paid donor contributions and pledges (i.e., contributions for which the donor has made an official commitment
in writing) will be taken into account when planning funding availability for allocations. Anticipated donor
contributions without a commitment in writing cannot be considered available for allocation.
96. To enhance the strategic nature of CBPF SHF allocations and related messaging to stakeholders, for each
allocation the HC develops a Strategic Statement as the first, overarching element of the allocation strategy,
articulating why the allocation is critical at a particular moment in time and the way in which it will add value,
for example, by promoting agreed, system-wide priorities, enhancements to the system, and improvements
in the quality of assistance. It explains how the allocation will make a difference in key areas over and above
addressing prioritised humanitarian needs - the added value that responding through a Pooled Fund brings.
17
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

It can serve as a basis to assess the allocation’s success.

4.1. Allocation modalities

4.1.1. Standard Allocation

97. The HC uses the Standard Allocation process to support the response when an allocation is less time
sensitive than a Reserve Allocation. Typically, a large number of partners have the potential to deliver on the
objective of the allocation, requiring a competitive process. The allocations take place against the backdrop
of the HRP or other equivalent collective humanitarian plans. However, the funding available for any given
allocation is usually small in relation to the funding requirements of such plans – so each allocation is focused
by a clear articulation of the humanitarian strategy it will advance, aligned with the HC’s Vision Paper for the
Fund. The allocations are not simply intended to “fill funding gaps” – such an approach will result in a
protracted process to determine funding decisions and a fragmented project portfolio with diluted focus and
impact.
98. The process is conducted under the auspices of the HC, informed by the AB and in close consultation with
the existing coordination mechanisms, which may include sectors/clusters and/or other relevant coordination
platforms, to ensure the best possible analysis and use of resources. The consultation process will be set up
to ensure inclusivity, while managing the time required/speed and transaction costs. Allocation strategies and
funding decisions are supported by appropriate documentation, and all relevant information is communicated
to key stakeholders in a timely manner. Transparency is essential for the Fund to function properly and in a
principled manner.
99. The selection of projects under a Standard Allocation follows a competitive process, including a call for
proposals. Project proposals submitted by eligible partners are reviewed using pre-established criteria, with
those best able to deliver against the Allocation Strategy recommended for funding.
100. Projects selected for funding through Standard Allocations will have a maximum implementation period of 24
months. This is a maximum and should not be construed as an entitlement. The appropriate time period for
any given project will be considered in line with any relevant specifications in the Allocation Strategy and on
a case-by-case basis and will be commensurate with the envisaged activities, outputs, programme quality
and value for money. Proposals with unrealistically short timeframes in order to appear economical and
competitive, but for which achievement of the envisaged activities, outputs and desired level of quality is not
feasible, will be deprioritised. Projects with protracted timeframes which go beyond what is required to achieve
the envisaged activities, outputs and programme quality and may include undue recurrent costs will be
similarly deprioritised.
101. The total amount of funding to be allocated through Standard Allocations is set out in the Allocation Strategy.
Maximum grant ceilings are set out in the Operational Modalities28 for the SHF, regulated by the risk level
assigned to any given partner and the project duration.
102. The SHF will explore, on an ongoing basis, how allocation processes can be streamlined and light. Efforts to
streamline and expedite the allocation process are critical, minimising transaction costs. Where possible
timelines will be shorter, while the indicative timeline for a Standard Allocation process ranges from 35 to 45
working days through to the signature of Grant Agreements 29, followed by up to 10 working days for first
disbursements. The steps are as follows:
Step 1: Allocation Strategy development
103. The HC determines that an allocation process will be conducted, in consultation with AB and the HFU, setting
out its strategic intent in a concise Strategic Statement that will be part of the full Allocation Strategy. The

28
For more information on Operational Modalities refer to chapter 5.
29
Eligibility of expenditures can start prior to signature of the Grant Agreement, as noted in paragraphs 131 and 326.
18
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

Strategic Statement outlines why the allocation is appropriate at a particular juncture and the added value
that addressing needs through the Fund will bring in terms of system improvements and quality of the wider
response.
104. Guided by the Strategic Statement, the HFU prepares a detailed Allocation Strategy in consultation with the
existing coordination mechanisms, which may include sectors/clusters and/or other relevant coordination
platforms and stakeholders. The detailed Allocation Strategy is evidence-based with reference to verifiable
data. It includes:
i. The Strategic Statement
ii. List of priorities - defined as clearly as possible to allow for focused and best use of the limited
resources available
iii. Total amount to be allocated (which should be detailed to the extent possible by, for example, by
priority, theme, expected outcome, geographic area)
iv. Complementarity with CERF30 and other funding sources
v. Criteria for project prioritization/selection
vi. Partner eligibility criteria
vii. Timeline for the further steps in the process

105. The HFU provides a draft Allocation Strategy and ensures adequate dialogue with the CBPF Section to allow
for feedback and guidance and ensure high-quality Allocation Strategies in conformity with global templates
and standards. Each Allocation Strategy should be reviewed by the CBPF Section before final endorsement.
106. The HFU shares the Allocation Strategy with the AB for feedback and the HC for final review. Once the HC
endorses the final version of the Allocation Strategy, it is issued by the HFU, which then launches the call for
proposals.
Step 2: Submission of project proposals
107. Eligible partners prepare project proposals that address the strategic intent and specific priorities outlined in
the Allocation Strategy. Project proposals (annex 3) are submitted for consideration through the GMS.31
Step 3: Review of project proposals
108. The HFU conducts a preliminary screening of all project proposals submitted to verify minimum requirements
and that the applicant organisation meets any other basic specifications set out in the Allocation Strategy. It
does not assess the substantial aspects of the project design.
109. The HFU, in consultation with sectors/clusters and/or other relevant coordination platforms and stakeholders,
establishes Review Committees which may be organized around thematic, geographic, sectoral or other
configurations most suited to the Allocation Strategy. Review Committees are responsible for assessing the
design of the project proposals and their alignment with the Allocation Strategy. A scorecard with fixed
weighted categories is used to inform a systematic and objective review process (see annex 4 for scorecard
sample indicators), which may be complemented by other tools of relevance to the nature of the proposals.
Based on the outcomes of the review, Review Committees recommend funding those proposals which are
deemed to best support the delivery of the Allocation Strategy.32
110. The HFU consolidates recommendations from the Review Committees of projects to be funded, scrutinizes
the recommendations for coherence with the agreed Allocation Strategy and any relevant parameters, and
then submits to the HC a full list of recommended projects. The HC reviews and endorses the projects for

30
For further information on complementarity between The SHF and CERF refer to chapter 3.
31
The project proposal template and corresponding reporting template will be updated with the launch of the OneGMS, as described in
chapter 1.3 and may be subject to further refinements from time to time.
32
For more detailed roles and responsibilities of the Review Committees refer to the ToR (annex 5).
19
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

final technical and financial review.

111. Through the GMS, each partner receives a notification about whether its project(s) has been recommended
for funding, including an explanation of the decision. The AB may be provided with a summarized overview
of the indicative portfolio.
Step 4: Final technical and financial review of proposals recommended for funding
112. The final technical and financial review ensures that proposals are of the highest possible quality before final
approval by the HC. It ensures that any required modifications identified during the previous vetting stage are
incorporated and examines other technical and financial details. The HFU conducts the final technical and
financial review in liaison with subject matter experts (for example, sector/cluster representatives, gender and
disability inclusion experts) as needed. The review includes the appropriateness of the proposed budget and
its conformity with any relevant financial and budgetary rules. Final budget clearance may be made by the
Finance Officer of the HFU or the Finance Unit in the CBPF Section, subject to prevailing delegations of
authority.
113. Partners address comments from the Review Committee, as well as those arising from the final technical and
financial review. Partners resubmit proposals through the GMS to incorporate required changes and ensure
robust final quality, with each re-submission receiving further comments as appropriate. If, after three cycles
of re-submission, a proposal does not meet requirements, it may be removed from the process.
Step 5: Final project approval by HC and signing of the Grant Agreement
114. Once the final technical and financial review is completed, the HFU will recommend the project to the HC for
final approval and preparation of the Grant Agreement.
115. The HFU will liaise with partners to determine the start date of the projects. At the request of the partners, the
agreed start date may be specified as early as the date when the budget was cleared by OCHA. This is a
provision to accommodate the early start of activities and eligible expenditures in advance of signing the
Grant Agreement and completing the first disbursement, should the partner wish to proceed in this manner.
If the Grant Agreement, for extraordinary circumstances/force majeure, is not signed following the budget
clearance, then the partner will be liable for any expenditures incurred – however, this scenario is extremely
unlikely.
116. Following the preparation of the Grant Agreement, it will be signed first by the HC, second by the partner, and
finally by OCHA’s Executive Officer. All signatures are made through the GMS, and electronic signatures are
acceptable.
117. The HFU makes consolidated information on the allocation and the project portfolio widely available to
stakeholders, including through the CBPF DataHub, Allocation Dashboards, and/or via mailing lists.
Step 6: Disbursement
118. Following the final signature of the Grant Agreement by the OCHA Executive Officer, the initial disbursement
of funds will take place within 10 working days.

Standard Allocation workflow (indicative timeline 35-45 working days33, plus disbursement)
Step 1: Allocation Strategy development
1.0 HC decides to launch an allocation in consultation with the AB, setting out its strategic intent in a concise
Strategic Statement.
1.1 OCHA/HFU prepares a detailed Allocation Strategy with inputs from sectors/clusters and/or other
coordination mechanisms and from relevant stakeholders.
1.2 OCHA/CBPF Section reviews the Allocation Strategy to allow for feedback and guidance and ensure
high-quality Allocation Strategy in conformity with global templates and standards.

33
Eligibility of expenditures can start prior to signature of the Grant Agreement, as noted in paragraphs 131 and 326.
20
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

1.3 OCHA/HFU shares the Allocation Strategy with the AB for feedback. The HC endorses the final version
of the Allocation Strategy.
1.4 OCHA/HFU issues the Allocation Strategy by way of initiating the call for proposals.
Step 2: Submission of project proposals
2.1 Eligible partners submit project proposals.
Step 3: Review of project proposals
3.1 OCHA/HFU conducts preliminary screening of submitted project proposals to verify basic eligibility
requirements.
3.2 Review Committees recommend funding project proposals based on selection criteria specified in the
Allocation Strategy and informed by the use of scorecards and other tools.
3.3 OCHA/HFU consolidates recommendations from Review Committees, scrutinizes coherence with the
agreed Allocation Strategy and any relevant parameters, and submits to the HC a final list of recommended
projects. The HC reviews and endorses the projects for final technical and financial review.
Step 4: Final technical and financial review
4.1 OCHA/HFU in liaising with technical experts as needed and conducts the technical and financial
review.
4.2 Partners address comments from Review Committees, OCHA/HFU and technical experts. Proposals
can be revised in three cycles to reach the required quality.
4.3 OCHA/HFU or the CBPF Section conducts budget clearance, subject to prevailing delegations of
authority.
Step 5: Final approval by HC and Grant Agreement 34
5.1 HC gives final approval for projects. OCHA/HFU prepares Grant Agreements with start date, reporting
timelines, disbursement schedule and other conditions.
5.2 HC, Partner and finally OCHA EO sign Grant Agreement
Step 6: Disbursement (10 working days)
6.1 OCHA/CBPF Section actions disbursement.

4.1.2. Reserve Allocation

119. The Reserve Allocation is intended primarily to respond to rapid onset and unforeseen circumstances and
address corresponding needs. Rapid response to an unforeseen cholera outbreak in a particular geographical
location is an illustrative example. Traditionally, Reserve Allocations will be used to provide an immediate
response for emerging priority needs not included in the HRP.
120. Exceptionally, the Reserve Allocation may also be used to support special initiatives which may not be rapid
onset or unforeseen per se, but where the HC considers that the CBPF is uniquely placed to play a strategic
role of critical importance to the wider humanitarian response, and for which there are very few suitable
partners, and a Standard Allocation process would be inefficient. Undertaking a specialised needs
assessment, procuring specialised emergency supplies or supporting a unique common service not generally
obtainable through other means are illustrative examples.
121. A key characteristic of the Reserve Allocation, differentiating it from the Standard Allocation, is that funding
applications will be entertained from a limited number of partners by invitation, and identified according to
explicit criteria. In this way, the process can be streamlined as compared with a Standard Allocation. To
ensure transparency, the HFU will consult with sectors/clusters and/or other relevant coordination platforms
and stakeholders to identify the criteria and the best-placed partners to be invited to submit proposals. 35 The
Allocation Strategy (annex 2B) will outline the selection criteria for partner(s) invited to submit proposals. A
fully-fledged Allocation Strategy comparable to that of a Standard Allocation is not required – however, the

34
While OCHA is responsible for the signing of the HC and EO, the timeline is also contingent on partners signing the Grant Agreement.
35
In situations where the application of the criteria to identify partners for invitation to submit proposals results in more than one partner
being invited to submit a proposal for the same scope of work, a limited competitive process may be conducted. In such cases a rapid
strategic review may be required, similar to the process used in Standard Allocations with a Review Committee to recommend project(s)
for funding.
21
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

Strategic Statement will be accompanied in a short Allocation Strategy by other key parameters to execute
the allocation quickly, such as geographical area(s), types of project(s) to be implemented, amount to be
allocated.
122. Projects selected for funding through Reserve Allocations will have a maximum implementation period of 12
months. This is a maximum and should not be construed as an entitlement. The appropriate time period for
any given project will be considered in line with any relevant specifications in the Allocation Strategy and on
a case-by-case basis and will be commensurate with the envisaged activities, outputs, programme quality
and value for money. Proposals with unrealistically short timeframes to appear economical and competitive
but for which achievement of the envisaged activities, outputs and desired level of quality is not feasible will
be deprioritised. Projects with protracted timeframes which go beyond what is required to achieve the
envisaged activities, outputs and programme quality and may include undue recurrent costs, will be similarly
deprioritised.
123. The total amount of funding to be allocated through the Reserve Allocation is set out in the Allocation Strategy.
Maximum grant ceilings are set out in the Operational Modalities 36 for each Fund, regulated by the risk level
assigned to any given partner and the project duration.
124. The SHF explores allocation processes that are streamlined and light. The indicative timeline for a Reserve
Allocation ranges from 15 to 20 working days37 through to the signature of Grant Agreements, followed by up
to 10 working days for the first disbursements. The steps are as follows:
Step 1: Strategic Statement and Allocation Strategy development
125. The HC determines that an allocation process will be conducted, setting out its strategic intent in a concise
Strategic Statement that outlines why the allocation is appropriate at a particular juncture and the added value
that addressing needs through the Fund will bring in terms of system improvements and quality of the wider
response.
126. HFU prepares a short Allocation Strategy, in consultation with the existing coordination mechanisms, which
may include sectors/clusters and/or other relevant coordination platforms and other stakeholders, that
includes the Strategic Statement and other key parameters to execute the allocation quickly (such as
geographical area(s), types of project(s) to be implemented, amount to be allocated, and criteria for the
partner(s) invited to submit proposals).
127. The Allocation Strategy is reviewed by the CBPF Section to allow for feedback and guidance before being
submitted to the AB. This ensures high quality and conformity with global templates and standards.
128. HFU shares the Allocation Strategy with the AB for feedback. A meeting is not required, and a no-objections
feedback process conducted within 24-48 hours is sufficient.
129. The HC endorses the final version of the Allocation Strategy. HFU invites identified partner(s) to submit
proposal(s) supporting the delivery of the Allocation Strategy.
Step 2: Submission of project proposal(s)
130. Invited partner(s) submit project proposal(s) that address the strategic intent and specific priorities outlined in
the Allocation Strategy through the GMS.
Step 3: Final technical and financial review of proposal(s) 38
131. The objective of the technical and financial review is to ensure that proposal(s) are of sufficient quality before
the final approval by the HC. The HFU conducts the final technical and financial review in liaison with subject
matter experts (for example sector/cluster representatives, gender and disability inclusion experts), as

36
For more information on Operational Modalities refer to chapter 5.
37
Eligibility of expenditures can start prior to signature of the Grant Agreement, as noted in paragraphs 131 and 326.
38
In situations where the application of the criteria to identify partners to invite to submit proposals may result in more than one partner
being invited to submit a proposal to complete the same scope of work, a limited competitive process with a rapid strategic review may
be required.
22
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

needed, to ensure the appropriateness of project design and the proposed budget, including its conformity
with relevant financial and budgetary rules. The HFU will send consolidated comments to partners. Final
budget clearance is conducted by the HFU, the Finance Officers at the HFU or the Finance Unit in the CBPF
Section and is subject to prevailing delegations of authority.
132. Partners resubmit proposals through the GMS to incorporate required changes and ensure robust final
quality, with each re-submission receiving further comments as appropriate. Given the urgency of the
response, if after two cycles of re-submission a proposal does not meet requirements, it may be removed
from the process.
Step 4: Final project approval by the HC and signing of Grant Agreement
133. Once the technical and financial review is completed, OCHA/HFU will recommend it to the HC for final
approval and preparation of the Grant Agreement.
134. HFU will liaise with the partner to determine the start date of the project. At the request of the partner, the
agreed start date may be specified as early as the date when the budget was cleared at HQ level. This is a
provision to accommodate the early start of activities and eligible expenditures in advance of signing the
Grant Agreement and completing the first disbursement, should the partner wish to proceed in that manner.
If the Grant Agreement, for extraordinary circumstances/force majeure, is not signed following the budget
clearance, then the partner will be liable for any expenditures incurred – however, this scenario is extremely
unlikely.
135. Following the preparation of the Grant Agreement, it will be signed firstly by the HC, secondly by the partner,
and finally by OCHA’s EO. Signatures are made through the GMS and electronic signatures are acceptable.
136. The HFU makes consolidated information on the allocation and the project portfolio widely available to
stakeholders, including through the CBPF DataHub, Allocation Dashboards, and/or via mailing lists.
Step 5: Disbursement
137. Following the final signature of the Grant Agreement by OCHA/EO the initial disbursement of funds will take
place within 10 working days.
Reserve Allocation workflow (indicative timeline 15-20 working days39, plus disbursement)
Step 1: Allocation Strategy development
1.1 HC decides to conduct an allocation and drafts the Allocation Strategy (including the Strategic
Statement) with the support of OCHA/HFU and other stakeholders.
1.2 OCHA/CBPF Section reviews the Allocation Strategy and provides feedback.
1.3 OCHA/HFU shares the revised Allocation Strategy with the AB for feedback. HC endorses the final
version.
1.4 OCHA/HFU issues the Allocation Strategy and invites identified partner(s) to submit proposal(s).
Step 2: Submission of project proposals
2.1 Invited partner(s) submit project proposal(s).
Step 3: Final technical and financial review
3.1 Technical experts and OCHA/HFU conduct the technical and the financial review respectively.
3.2 Partner(s) address comments from technical experts and OCHA/HFU. Proposal can be revised in two
cycles to reach required quality.
3.3 OCHA/HFU or the CBPF Section conducts budget clearance, subject to prevailing delegations of
authority.
Step 4: Final approval by the HC and preparation of Grant Agreement40
4.1 HC gives final approval for projects. OCHA/HFU prepares the Grant Agreements with start date,
reporting timelines, disbursement schedule and other conditions.
4.2 HC, Partner and finally OCHA EO sign the Grant Agreement.
Step 5: Disbursement (10 working days)

39
Eligibility of expenditures can start prior to signature of the Grant Agreement, as noted in paragraphs 131 and 326.
40
While OCHA is responsible for the signing of the HC and EO, the timeline is also contingent on partners signing the Grant Agreement.
23
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

5.1 OCHA /CBPF Section makes initial disbursements.

4.2. Flexible funding provisions

4.2.1. Pre-positioning of funding for ‘48-hour response’

138. In coordination with contingency planning processes and in view of the strategic use of the SHF to respond
to sudden-onset emergencies as quickly as possible, allocations may include projects designed to pre-
position funding with partners to enable a ’48-hour response’. Pre-positioning of funding overcomes the need
to conduct a new allocation process and establish new Grant Agreements following a sudden-onset situation,
which requires a longer timeframe as outlined above.
139. Funding will be pre-positioned with pre-selected partners as a stand-alone “48-hour response” project,
unrelated to any other project selected for funding. The funds provided cannot be for extending or otherwise
modifying other projects. The following criteria apply to the selection of best-placed partners for pre-positioned
funding:
i. Geographical coverage: Partners must have the capacity to operate and/or have access to
location(s) susceptible to sudden-onset emergencies and where the HC considers that 48-hour
response capability is a strategic objective for the Fund.
ii. Operational capacity: Partners must have the technical capacity to provide an integrated, multi-
sector response and be able to deliver quickly.

140. In consultation with the AB and after the endorsement of the HC, a stand-alone Reserve Allocation for pre-
positioning of funding may be considered. The Allocation Strategy should include specifications related to
geographical areas, the amount of funding to be pre-positioned, and the criteria used to identify partners.
141. Project proposals for a 48-hour response should include basic information about the context, objective and
budget – however, details about the actual deployment of the funding will not be established until a sudden-
onset situation materializes.
142. Once funding has been pre-positioned with any given partner, it cannot be used unilaterally, rather explicit
authorisation must be obtained. The trigger and approval for the use of the pre-positioned funding to put into
effect a ‘48-hour response’ is as follows:
i. Upon onset of a sudden emergency, the partner with pre-positioned funding contacts the HFU.
Contact may also be initiated by OCHA and through other coordination mechanisms, to activate
response.
ii. The request by the partner to deploy pre-positioned funding should include basic information about
the situation, needs, proposed response activities and corresponding budget utilization.
iii. The HFU consults with HC, OCHA HoO and sectors/clusters and/or other relevant coordination
platforms and stakeholders, as required.
iv. The HFU provides a written response to the partner within 48 hours of the partner’s request,
approving or rejecting the use of the pre-positioned funding, including any caveats and conditions,
including the amount of funding to be deployed which may be all or part of the amount pre-
positioned. The date of HFU approval is the date from which expenditures can be deemed eligible.
The HC and the AB are notified.

143. Within 20 working days of the approval of the 48-hour response, the original proposal shall be modified in
GMS to reflect detailed activities, people targeted, and budget breakdown and be formalized through a Grant
Agreement Amendment. The partner is required to meet the financial and narrative reporting obligations as

24
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

set out in the amended Grant Agreement.

144. The amount of the pre-positioned funding that is not utilized by the end of a project period will be refunded.
In consultation with the HFU, a fair and reasonable cost related to the administration of the grant may be
recognized, even when activities are not carried out.

4.2.2. Contingency budget line

145. A contingency budget line may be added to selected projects to enable partners to facilitate a rapid response
to unforeseen urgent humanitarian needs (including those outside of the original scope of the project) in an
evolving context. The amount of the contingency cannot exceed 4 per cent of the total direct project cost,
exclusive of the contingency amount.
146. The contingency budget line shall not be used to compensate for overspending or other adjustments to the
original project – it is purposefully appended to the project as pre-positioned funding for addressing new,
unforeseen, and urgent needs.
147. Deployment of the contingency budget line requires prior written approval by the HFU (through e-mail). The
partner should communicate with the HFU regarding the new and unforeseen needs to be addressed and the
intended use of the budget. Review and approval, when appropriate, will be completed within 24 hours of the
request.
148. The actual use of the contingency budget line shall be described in the subsequent narrative and financial
reports. If the contingency budget line is not utilized, or only partially utilized, within the project implementation
period, the remaining amount shall be refunded at the time of final financial reporting and audit as per standard
procedures.

4.2.3. Project amendments

149. Project amendments fall under three categories: reprogramming, no-cost extensions (NCE) and cost
extensions (CE). For the purposes of learning and ensuring that the Funds remain flexible and responsive
while also ensuring the best use of resources, the AB shall be updated about and discuss trends and analysis
about project amendments.
Reprogramming
150. Reprogramming refers to a situation where the outputs, activities or budget utilization of a previously approved
project are modified in response to changing circumstances in which the project is implemented in order to
better meet the overall objectives of the project. There are no changes to the period of project implementation
or the original amount of approved funding.
151. Reprogramming can also be used to re-purpose projects and can be activated if strongly justified, including
but not limited to, where:
i. Funding is no longer required for the activities for which it was initially allocated and/or
ii. Planned activities can no longer be implemented due to the changed context and the nature of
the activity, and/or
iii. A different response and activities may become a more immediate priority for life-saving
humanitarian action than the activities for which the funding was originally allocated and/or
iv. A different response is complementary to the originally intended response and helps sustain or
amplify results initially planned and/or
v. Feedback received from affected people substantiates the need for a re-calibration of the project
design to ensure it remains evidence-based and appropriate to the context.

25
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

152. The changes can be requested by the partner or may be suggested by the HFU, sectors/clusters and/or other
relevant coordination platforms and stakeholders. The HFU, in consultation with sectors/clusters and/or other
relevant coordination platforms and subject matter experts as appropriate, will assess the appropriateness of
the proposed changes.
153. Reprogramming is processed on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis. Depending on the type, scope and
nature of changes a Grant Agreement Amendment may be required.41
No-cost extensions
154. A no-cost extension refers to a situation where the period for project implementation of a previously approved
project is extended but without any change to the original amount of approved funding to better meet the
overall objectives of the project and respond to changing circumstances.
155. The change can be requested by the partner or suggested by the HFU, sectors/clusters and/or other relevant
coordination platforms and stakeholders. The HFU, in consultation with sectors/clusters and/or other relevant
coordination platforms and subject matter experts as appropriate, will assess the appropriateness of the
proposed changes.
156. No-cost extensions are processed on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis and the final decision and
approval lies with the HC, with the recommendation from the HFU. No-cost extensions require a Grant
Agreement Amendment.
157. A no-cost extension can be combined with reprogramming in a situation where the outputs, activities or budget
usage, as well as the time period for implementation, are modified simultaneously.
Cost extensions
158. A cost extension refers to a situation where the budget of a previously approved project is exceptionally
increased, to respond to changing circumstances in which the project is implemented to better meet the
overall objectives of the project. The budget increase may be combined with an extension to the period for
project implementation.
159. The cost extension can be requested by the partner, or suggested by the HFU, sectors/clusters and/or other
relevant coordination platforms and stakeholders. The HFU, in consultation with sectors/clusters and/or other
relevant coordination platforms and subject matter experts as appropriate, will assess the appropriateness of
the proposed changes.
160. Cost extensions shall not be utilized to substitute for the normal allocation process and to approve what would
be in effect a new project. Rather, on exceptional basis and with compelling justification they may provide
some additional funding to an ongoing project in order to better achieve its objectives. Requests will be
reviewed, taking into consideration the available funding and humanitarian impact. A maximum of 30 per cent
of the amount of the original project budget may be allocated through CE.42
161. Cost extensions are processed on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis and the final decision and
approval lies with the HC, with recommendation from the HFU. A Grant Agreement Amendment is required. 43

4.2.4. Sub-granting and consortia arrangements

162. The SHF promotes the principle of direct funding to partners. Direct funding to best-placed partners is
preferred where strategic and operational objectives can be met, avoiding pass-through of resources and

41
The revision process and administrative requirements are detailed in chapter 6, section 6.4 Project Amendments.
42
The cost extension request and approval process is outlined in chapter 6, section 6.7 on Project Amendments. The disbursement and
other operational modalities are described in chapter 5.
43
The revision process and administrative requirements are detailed in chapter 6, section 6.7 Project Amendments.
26
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

associated transaction costs. This is of particular relevance to localization, the secondary aim of the SHF,
where Grand Bargain commitments are expressed in terms of direct funding to local and national actors.
163. There may, however, be circumstances where the deployment of funding through sub-granting or consortia
arrangements can be considered, when justified based on clear and feasible objectives.
Sub-granting
164. Sub-granting refers to a situation in which one partner organisation receives funding as the primary grantee
to implement a project, and the project design includes a component to be implemented by another
organisation. The primary grantee passes a corresponding part of the funding to another organisation which
becomes a sub-partner. The primary grantee remains accountable for the delivery of the entire project and
the proper use of resources, including the part of the project and the resources pertaining to the sub-partners.
165. Sub-granting arrangements can be considered when there is clear justification and rationale, including:
i. Where the arrangement will develop the capacity of the sub-partners, promoting opportunities for
future engagement as a primary grantee. This may include strengthening technical expertise, or
knowledge and familiarity with the SHF processes, including financial rules and regulations,
reporting etc. The primary grantee should demonstrate that it is capable of providing the required
support and mentoring to the sub-partners, and that the arrangement will not be reduced to an
entirely administrative or transactional ‘pass-through’ of funding. The proposed arrangement and
its added value should be articulated in the project proposal.
ii. Where the arrangement promotes multi-sector/integrated programming. This refers to cases
where the objective to achieve multi-sector/integrated programming can only be achieved through
sub-granting, either to ensure the involvement of partners that are not able to receive funding
directly as primary grantees, or to ensure the rigour of the programmatic approach through a
single, coherent project proposal rather than multiple proposals. The primary grantee should
demonstrate that it can provide the required leadership and coordination so that the arrangement
achieves its purpose. The proposed arrangement and its added value should be articulated in the
project proposal.
iii. When the arrangement adds value in terms of access, knowledge, proximity etc. for the principled
delivery of assistance in conflict settings and other contexts. This refers to cases where a best-
placed organization that could deliver principled assistance within a programmatic strategy, due
to its comparative advantage vis-a-vis access, relationships, local knowledge and proximity to the
affected people, may be unable to receive funding directly. The primary grantee should
demonstrate that it can provide the required leadership, monitoring and coordination so that the
arrangement achieves its purpose. The proposed arrangement and its added value should be
articulated in the project proposal.

Consortia
166. A consortium is defined as an arrangement where two or more organisations come together to work towards
a common goal. In terms of granting modalities, a consortium may involve (i) sub-granting by a primary
grantee to one or more sub-partners under a single project proposal as described in the preceding section;
or (ii) two or more projects and grantees, but where there is a bespoke, overarching coordination arrangement
that ensures that the projects work in parallel and as a whole to achieve a common goal.44
167. Where the proposed consortium is essentially a sub-granting arrangement, the approach described above
will apply. Where the proposed consortium involves two or more project proposals and primary grantees, it
can be considered when there is clear justification and rationale, including: where the arrangement enables
organisations to bring together different sectoral or technical expertise and to coordinate their activities more

44
In such cases the project proposals should make reference to each other and be reviewed together prior to recommendation for
funding. Similarly, monitoring and reporting should make reference to each project.
27
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

effectively to deliver a more holistic response to crisis-affected people, for example, a multi-sector or
integrated response, or geographical convergence or streamlined activities such as procurement for greater
efficiency (rather than the activities being conducted by each organisation separately and less efficiently).

4.2.5. Multi-year funding

168. Multi-year funding (MYF) is defined as ‘funding that is intentionally provided beyond 12 months up to a
maximum of 24 months.’ It does not refer to projects initially designed for not more than 12 months, for which
the timeframe is subsequently extended through a project modification for administrative or operational
reasons.
169. While the Funds will prioritize response to existing acute needs, there is a commitment to explore the ability
and utility of investments in preventing and responding to needs in a more predictable and sustained manner
over periods of more the 12 months when appropriate to the context, supportive of desired outcomes,
favourable in terms of cost and administrative efficiencies, and feasible within the resources available.
170. The criteria for consideration of project proposals with implementation periods beyond 12 months and up to
a maximum of 24 months will be clearly established in the Standard Allocation strategy, linked to specific
activity types, outputs, programme quality and value for money.
171. The extent to which any given Fund will allocate MYF will also be determined by resources available,
considering the amount and timing of donor contributions. The predictability of donor contributions is a key
determinant of the ability to forecast liquidity and plan investments in order to best meet the objectives of the
Funds – in this regard, multi-year contribution agreements are highly desirable. Establishing a limit/proportion
of funding for a multi-year approach at the country-level at the beginning of the year, e.g., in the HC’s Vision
Paper, can be considered.
172. MYF can be considered when it clearly enables:
i. More sustainable assistance or completion of an activity in an appropriate timeframe, avoiding
unrealistically short implementation periods and the likelihood of no-cost extensions (indicative
examples include projects that are dependent on external timeframes, such as school years or
agricultural seasons).
ii. Cost-effectiveness in terms of the implementation of sustainable services, (indicative examples
include projects that require significant upfront investment and longer implementation periods to
address complex situations, including prevention and preparedness activities in protracted
humanitarian contexts).
iii. Behaviour change activities that require a longer implementation period to demonstrate
effectiveness, (indicative examples include nutrition projects that integrate prevention and
response, or that reinforce sanitation and hygiene practices, or that encourage agriculture
practices through different cropping cycles, or psychosocial support programmes).
iv. Developing emergency response capacity in areas with low humanitarian presence, allowing
partners, particularly local and national NGOs, to plan longer projects in a more strategic manner,
including larger initial investments, and facilitating continuity of operations and services to the
affected people.

173. To optimise liquidity, MYF may be effected through an alternative Grant Agreement that incorporates both
the total amount of the project (the amount anticipated to be allocated by the Fund over the life of the project)
and the obligated amount (the amount that the Fund has committed to allocate to date, which may be a
portion of the total amount).45 In this way, as an illustrative example, funding for the first year of activities

45
At the time of the issuance of the Global Guidelines the alternative Grant Agreement is under consideration.
28
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

may be obligated at the start of the project, with additional funding obligated at a later date for activities in the
second year of the project, considering progress and any project modifications that may be appropriate. The
initial project proposal will cover the full intended implementation period, and disbursements will be aligned
with the risk-based Operational Modalities.

5. Risk management
5.1. Risk management in the context of SHF
174. Risk management is an important tool across the UN system, including within OCHA. For the SHF, robust
risk management assists OCHA and the HC in making strategic decisions that maximize the ability of the
SHF to achieve its objectives. OCHA’s corporate risk register includes pooled fund management as a key
area of risk for the organization, and the effective management of risks related to the SHF is a corresponding
corporate priority and key area of accountability for OCHA.
175. Risk management in the context of CBPFs SHF happens on three levels:
i. At the global-level (see section 5.2) risk management includes periodic global evaluations,
frequent scrutiny and review by UN oversights bodies, and the maintenance of OCHA’s corporate
risk register.
ii. At the Fund-level, (see section 5.3) risk management involves a set of tools to inform decision-
making processes to support the achievement of Fund objectives in a transparent manner. The
process includes risk identification, risk analysis and the development of mitigation strategies to
manage residual risks, as well as monitoring and review of identified risks.
iii. At the partner level (see section 5.4), risk management is concerned with tailoring engagement
with partners according to the assessed risk level of each, which in turn is derived through a rolling
assessment of each partner’s capacity and performance. Of particular relevance are risk-based
conditionalities and oversight procedures for each Grant Agreement.

176. The combination of the Fund-level and partner-level risk management inform Fund strategies, allocation
decisions, the oversight regime for individual Grant Agreements concluded with partners and residual risks.

5.2. Global-level risk management

177. Management of the CBPFs is a key component of OCHA’s mandate to coordinate humanitarian affairs,
including humanitarian financing. Corporately, OCHA is responsible for ensuring that CBPFs are managed
appropriately and can meet their objectives. Central to this is OCHA’s ability to assess the risks associated
with managing CBPFs and address them through appropriate actions. More information on the global level
risk management mechanisms, including evaluations, UN Secretariat oversight bodies and OCHA corporate
risk management can be found in the CBPF Global Guidelines, Chapter 5.2.

5.3. Fund-level risk management

178. The strategic direction of the SHF is anchored in the provisions of the Global Guidelines, which also set out
requirements for robust and accountable Fund management. At the country level, this is further contextualized
in a Fund-specific Operational Manual. The Operational Manual is revised annually, or more frequently as
needed, to reflect changes in the operating context and calibration of the Fund’s objectives within the general
29
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

framework of the prevailing Global Guidelines.

179. An essential component of fulfilling Fund-level objectives is the corresponding ability of each Fund to identify
and manage risks that may be unique to, or vary across, each specific operating context. Factors may include
the funding environment, the nature of the humanitarian context, the profile of partners with which the Fund
has the potential to engage, the political social and environmental situation, and others. A Fund-level Risk
Management Framework (annex 6) is developed by each CBPF, identifying and analysing key risks that may
inhibit the Fund’s pursuit of its objectives and setting out corresponding mitigation strategies and actions.
Formulation and review of the Risk Management Framework is facilitated by the HFU, and falls under the
accountability of the HC, who is responsible for approving it. The Risk Management Framework and its
periodic revisions also require the endorsement of the AB as a key element of risk-sharing among OCHA and
the Fund’s stakeholders. The process ensures the Fund remains relevant in the dynamic context in which it
is operating, responsive to changing objectives and risks while adhering to the Global Guidelines. The Risk
Management Framework is included in the Operational Manual of each Fund and should be reviewed
annually or more frequently as needed.
180. The Risk Management Framework consolidates all activities and functions that mitigate key risks. Identified
risks, including recurring trends from audit findings, are analysed and categorized in terms of severity
according to their relative likelihood and potential impact on the Fund’s objectives. The analysis should clearly
set out residual risks to enable informed decision making based on an understanding of potential
consequences. The key steps outlined below are based on the ISO31000 international risk management
standard and guide the process.

Risk management process overview

Step 1: Establish context

Establishing the context focuses on developing a structure for the risk identification tasks to follow. This
includes reviewing the context in which the fund operates, including OCHA priorities, security,
coordination mechanisms, programmatic priorities, etc.

Step 2: Risk identification

Identifying risks associated with the fund in the country of operation (what incidents can occur and why
the incident could occur).

Step 3: Risk analysis

The likelihood and magnitude of the risks - categorization of risk in terms of their likelihood and
consequence (this is typically done in a heat-map).

Step 4: Risk evaluation

Strategies for pre-empting and treating the occurrence of a risk (options to reduce likelihood or
alternatives to treat risk if it occurs).

Step 5: Risk treatment46

46
Risk treatment is a risk modification process. There are several options for risk treatment, including reducing the risk, sharing the risk,
removing the source of the risk, accepting the risk, perhaps even increasing the risk if the risk could become an opportunity. Once the
treatment option has been implemented it becomes a control, or a modification of a control.
30
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

This should detail responsibility for managing a risk (what specific stakeholder should take action to
avoid or treat risk).

Step 6: Monitoring and continual review of risks identified and identification of new risks as
they emerge.

Continual review of risks identified and identification of new risks as they emerge (at least annually).

5.4. Partner-level risk management (Risk-based grant

management)
Overview

181. An essential component of the SHF accountability is the analysis of specific risks associated with the
provisions of financial resources to partners. The methodology for partner-level risk management is described
below. It serves two main functions:
i. It ensures a broad range of partners have access to SHF funding to meet humanitarian objectives
by establishing adequate oversight requirements for partners assigned with differing risk levels.
Partners deemed to be of higher risk will not necessarily be excluded from receiving SHF funding
but rather will be more closely monitored through more stringent controls when compared with
partners deemed as lower risk.
ii. It helps partners identify areas for improvement that can reduce their assigned risk level to
incentivize good and accountable grant management and project performance through
strengthening systems and internal controls. Over time, higher-risk partners can transition to a
lower risk level through good performance and the demonstration of improved capacities and
systems, with a corresponding adjustment in the conditions and oversight requirements for new
Grant Agreements. Partners that are deemed ineligible because of an unsatisfactory capacity
assessment can work to address weaknesses in relevant areas and re-apply for eligibility when
ready.

182. The assigned risk level is derived in two ways that vary over time:
i. For new partners wishing to be considered for first-time eligibility to receive funding, capacity
assessments are coordinated by the HFU. 47 Capacity assessments take place before an
application for funding can be submitted.48 The HC, in consultation with the AB and with the advice
of the HFU, determines the methodology for conducting capacity assessments 49 and
corresponding thresholds for the partner to be deemed eligible to receive funding and the
assignment of a risk level. The eligibility threshold may vary across Funds to account for contextual
differences and represents a measure of risk tolerance.
ii. Over time, as any given partner implements one or more SHF -funded projects, its assigned risk
level will be increasingly informed by performance assessment. The dynamic assessment of
performance in the proper management of grants and the sound delivery of projects is given
increasing weight as compared to the original capacity assessment, which captured a particular

47
For an international partner engaging with multiple Funds, a capacity assessment is conducted by each Fund.
48
Where under exceptional circumstances a funding application may be submitted by a prospective partner prior to a capacity
assessment, under no circumstances will the Grant Agreement be concluded until the eligibility process is satisfactorily completed.
49
Internal Capacity Assessment conducted by OCHA (standard methodology) or alternative methodologies described further below.
31
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

set of information at a particular moment in time. A Performance Index is used for the rolling
assessment of performance, capturing data and information through the project implementation
and grant management cycle (see section 5.4.2).

183. All non-UN partners are assigned a risk level as described above through an initial capacity assessment and
subsequent performance assessment. UN agencies partnering with the SHF are not subject to an initial
capacity assessment. As part of the UN system, UN agencies are directly accountable to the UN Member
States and oversight bodies. Each UN agency has its own governance, accountability and assurance
framework that applies to the management of the SHF grants. UN agencies are, however, subject to
performance assessment using the Performance Index during project implementation and the grant cycle.
Having derived the assigned risk level for any given partner (or the performance level for UN agencies), a set
of Operational Modalities determines commensurate grant conditionalities and oversight measures. The
Modalities establish the maximum allowable grant amount for a project of a given duration to be implemented
by a partner assigned a given risk level; and describe the minimum requirements for reporting by the partner
and for oversight activities coordinated by OCHA, including monitoring, financial spot checks and audits.

5.4.1. Eligibility and the assignment of an initial risk level for non-UN
partners
184. Eligibility to receive funding for national and international NGO partners, as well as Red Cross/Red Crescent
organizations, is determined through a four-step process which includes preliminary screening, registration,
due diligence (DD) review and capacity assessment. As described above, this process also determines the
initially assigned risk level for the partner.
185. During the eligibility process, and subsequently, during project implementation, monitoring and auditing,
partners are requested to share a large amount of information with OCHA. NGOs sharing data that is required
under the CBPF policies are subject to the application of the UN regulatory framework on data protection.
Such sharing of data is in accordance with the terms of the CBPF policies or other applicable agreements
with the United Nations. Only approved users with specific user rights in the GMS will be able to access
personal identifying data. This will be in full compliance with the UN rules and regulations. Due diligence
information entered in the GMS is not public information. OCHA is not subject to data protection laws,
including, but not limited to, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”)
and is immune from every form of legal process pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations and the 1946
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Any data that is transferred by or to the
United Nations or otherwise processed by NGOs pursuant to, or in furtherance of, the CBPF policies or other
agreements with the United Nations (“UN Data”) is the property of the United Nations and constitutes property
and archives of the United Nations within the meaning of the UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
of the United Nations. It is therefore inviolable wherever located and by whomsoever held, and it is immune
from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any form of interference, whether by executive,
administrative, legislative, judicial, or legal action.

186. The four-step eligibility process is described below.

Step 1: Preliminary screening of prospective partners

187. Prior to starting the full eligibility process, prospective partners undergo a preliminary screening. This is a
mandatory step using a set of globally standardized questions, which can be complemented by additional
Fund-specific questions if deemed relevant in the context. The preliminary screening assesses whether
prospective partners meet basic, minimum standards related to the organization’s experience in humanitarian
operations, adherence to humanitarian principles, the existence of a Code of Conduct and other required
policies such as those concerning fraud, conflict of interest, the use of computerized and licensed accounting
32
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

software, and the protection from sexual exploitation and abuse. See the Eligibility Guidance Note (annex 7)
for the global preliminary screening questionnaire.
188. Prospective partners can access the preliminary screening questionnaire to self-assess the extent to which
they meet the basic, minimum standards for eligibility. To proceed with the full eligibility process, the
questionnaire can be submitted to the respective HFU. When filling out the questionnaire, prospective
partners are requested to provide genuine information. The veracity of the responses will be assessed later
during the full capacity assessment – and the preliminary screening aims to reduce the costs and level of
effort required to undertake a full capacity assessment in cases where the basic, minimum requirements are
not met. False or inaccurate information provided in the preliminary screening will lead to the ineligibility of
the prospective partner to continue with subsequent stages of the process. Partners will receive feedback on
the outcomes of the preliminary screening. Organizations that do not fulfil the preliminary screening criteria
can re-apply later when the basic, minimum standards for eligibility are met.

Step 2: Registration in the UN Partner Portal and Grants Management System

189. Prospective SHF partners are required to register in the UN Partner Portal (UNPP). Partners that are already
registered in the UNPP can provide their unique ID number when filling out the preliminary screening
questionnaire, which will shorten the process. Prospective partners that are not registered in the UNPP should
complete registration after their preliminary screening is finalized. 50 More information on the UNPP
registration and required documents can be found in the Eligibility Guidance Note (annex 7). Failure to meet
the minimum preliminary screening criteria for consideration for SHF eligibility does not prevent a partner
from initiating registration in UNPP, so that at the next appropriate moment to undertake the preliminary
screening a UNPP profile and ID number has already been established.
190. After registration in the UNPP and successful completion of the preliminary screening, the prospective partner
can request access to the CBPF GMS by contacting the HFU. Upon registering in the GMS, the partner will
be requested to provide the unique UNPP ID number to facilitate the transfer of data. Only under exceptional
circumstances can registration in GMS be entertained without prior registration in the UNPP. In such cases,
the partner will be required to submit a copy of the registration certificate that indicates the full name of the
organisation, preferably in English. The registration certificate is required prior to granting access to the GMS
to avoid a possible naming discrepancy that will create delays in generating and preparing any eventual Grant
Agreement and processing related disbursements.
Step 3: Due diligence and Capacity Assessment
191. Once the GMS registration process is concluded, the DD and Capacity Assessment (CA) is conducted. The
prospective partner is invited to submit all required documents for both processes at once. The documents
required are listed in the Eligibility Guidance Note (annex 7). The HFU will then review these documents in
three stages:
a) Due diligence
192. A thorough DD review is performed to ensure that prospective partners meet all minimum requirements and
that there are grounds to proceed with the capacity assessment. Partners are required to submit a DD
application form, supporting documents such as a registration certificate, bank account information, a bank
statement and identification documents, as well as several statutory declarations. At the discretion of each
Fund, additional mandatory or desirable requirements may be added.
193. While UN agencies are not required to undergo a full DD review, the following information must be provided
on GMS: i) office address, ii) contact details of the legal representative (the person who signs Grant
Agreements), and iii) bank account information. These will be needed later in the event that any project is

50
Existing CBPF partners not registered in the UNPP will also need to do so, to continue to be able to receive funding.
33
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

recommended for funding and a Grant Agreement is prepared.

b) Verification of excluding questions
194. Once the DD review has been finalized, and all requirements met, a verification of excluding questions will
be completed prior to undertaking the fully-fledged capacity assessment.
195. A limited number of questions in the capacity assessment refer to non-negotiable minimum requirements. A
list of the excluding questions is included in the Eligibility Guidance Note (annex 7).
196. Before conducting a full capacity assessment, the HFU will consider and verify the status of the prospective
partner vis-a-vis these excluding questions, which are those used in the partner’s self-assessment for
preliminary screening. If the organization does not fulfil one or more of the minimum requirements, eligibility
is denied, and the capacity assessment process is discontinued. If all minimum requirements are met, the
HFU will assign a score to each question which will contribute to the final scoring of the full capacity
assessment.
c) -Capacity Assessment
197. The objective of the CA is to systematically review the institutional, technical, managerial, and financial
capacities of prospective partners and to ensure that the Fund has sufficient elements and information to
make an informed decision about eligibility and initially assigned risk level.
198. The HC, in consultation with the AB, is responsible for approving the way in which the Fund carries out the
capacity assessment and caters for associated costs.51
Alternative Capacity Assessment methodologies
1) External Capacity Assessment – “outsourced”
199. Due to the prevalence of security concerns and limited access, the SHF opts for use of the ECA modality.
The ECA approach outsources the assessment of partners’ capacity to a third party (normally an audit
company or similar). The third party conducting the assessment works closely with the HFU, which provides
support and overall process oversight.
200. Partners to be assessed through an ECA submit the documents required by the third party, which should
align with those used in the ICA. Additional documents may be requested by the HFU or the third party. Once
all documentation has been received from the prospective partner, the HFU is responsible for carrying out an
initial review and will determine whether the full assessment process will continue, informing the prospective
partner accordingly. Where the process continues, the third party will initiate the in-depth assessment,
including a desk-based review of the documents provided by the prospective partner; interviews with the
organization’s staff members; visits to the partner’s main office (and, where possible, to one or more field
offices), and interviews with key informants such as previous/existing donors and partners, cluster/sector
leads and members, and people assisted by the partner. The HFU reviews the process and outcomes of the
capacity assessment to ensure overall quality and accuracy.
2) Proxy Capacity Assessment
201. In exceptional cases, the capacity assessment of prospective NGO partners may also be carried out through
proxies rather than first-hand ECA. The Proxy Capacity Assessment (PCA) uses third-party information about
the partner’s capacity instead of conducting a new assessment. It is not to be confused with the use of proxies
as part of the ECA, which provide scores for specific sections of the ECA but do not replace the whole
assessment.
202. A variety of different proxies can be used in lieu of a first-hand capacity assessment depending on the context
of the Fund and access to different information sources. The following are some examples of information

51
In cases where a third party is co-opted to support the eligibility process and capacity assessments, the approaches used will conform
to the principles and minimum requirements specified in this document.
34
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

sources that can be used to ascertain the level of capacity of partners:

i. Past performance when engaging with the Fund in the country
ii. Assessment carried out by other donors and/or UN agencies
iii. Assessment carried out by an OCHA CBPF in another country
iv. Existing partnership agreements with other UN agencies and/or bilateral donors

The merit of each proxy will be assessed individually in terms of how well it satisfies the information
requirements contained in the ECA. One or more proxies can be identified as suitable in a given situation.
The PCA approach can be used only exceptionally and for a limited period of time, supported by compelling
justification and endorsed by the EO, following a written waiver request from the HC, in consultation with the
AB. A first-hand Capacity Assessment should be carried out as soon as circumstances allow to confirm the
eligibility and risk rating of the partners.
Step 4 – Assignment of initial risk level
203. Based on the score obtained during the capacity assessment, eligible partners will be assigned one of three
risk levels: High, Medium or Low. The assigned risk level will determine the applicable Operational Modalities,
including grant conditionalities and oversight activities, if a project proposal submitted by the partner is
selected for funding (see section 5.4.3).
204. The risk levels as determined by the capacity assessment (per centage) scores from ECA shall be categorised
as follow:
90 - 100: Organisation is eligible as a Low-Risk partner.
70 - 89.99: Organisation is eligible as a Medium Risk partner.
50 - 69.99: Organisation is eligible as a High-Risk partner.
49.99 or less: Organization remains ineligible.
205. OCHA may share the CA results and assigned partner risk levels with other entities in the UN system through
the appropriate mechanisms (UN Partner Portal or other relevant platforms). CA results and partner risk levels
may also be shared with non-UN entities, provided they have a funding relationship with the partner and that
the partner has provided explicit written consent to the information sharing.
Feedback and capacity developing
206. Each organization that undergoes a capacity assessment will receive a feedback report detailing the findings
and the recommended areas for improvement. Partners that do not pass the verification of excluding
questions will receive a summary report outlining the reasons. Partners that pass the verification of excluding
questions and undergo a detailed CA will receive a detailed report, regardless of whether the eligibility
threshold is achieved. For partners deemed eligible, the CA report will include recommendations for
improvement, which should be actioned. Organizations that are deemed ineligible as a result of the CA may
work with the HFU to create a capacity development plan to address the weaknesses identified. The capacity
development aims to position concerned partners to better meet eligibility requirements and access SHF
funding.
207. Organizations that fail to pass the CA categorised as conditionally eligible, particularly local and national
NGOs, may be deemed eligible following verified implementation of a time-bound capacity developing an
action plan, provided it addresses all key areas of weakness identified by the CA and is endorsed by the HFU.

Modalities of eligibility process

208. Partner capacity assessment rounds are initiated by OCHA Somalia HFU upon endorsement by the HC and
AB. Individual capacity assessments can also be initiated on a rolling and needs basis. The criteria for the
35
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

selection of partners for capacity assessment are determined by the HC. The process of identification of
potential partners to be assessed and will be compiled by the HFU, in consultation and upon recommendation
through the cluster system, on a periodic basis (usually once a year), to address critical capacity gaps in
humanitarian response. In exceptional cases, a partner can be recommended for a capacity assessment due
to its sound record and ability to address an immediate gap; and/or if a partner is considered as strategically
important by the HC and the SHF AB.
209. Partners deemed ineligible following the capacity assessment can re-apply after at least six months, if they
can demonstrate that the elements that led to the previous ineligibility have been addressed. Partners
deemed eligible following the capacity assessment but that do not obtain funding to implement projects for
three years are required to undergo a new eligibility process prior to being considered for further funding.
More details on these scenarios can be found in annex 7.

Registration of sub-partners
210. Partners are requested to register in the GMS prospective sub-partners that they intend to work with under
SHF-funded projects. Partners are responsible for completing such registration by indicating the name,
acronym, organization type and contact details for each sub-partner and providing a registration certificate
(or an equivalent document) for the organization with matches the name under which the sub-partner has
been registered. If the organization is not registered with the national authorities of the country of
implementation, the HC may choose to accept a registration certificate (or an equivalent document) with sub-
national level authorities or with the authorities of another UN Member State.
211. If the prospective sub-partner is already registered in the UNPP, the unique UNPP ID may be accepted in
lieu of the registration details. The SHF will review and approve sub-partner registration or revert to the main
partner if additional details are required.
212. While sub-partners do not need to undergo the full due diligence review and Capacity Assessment to be
eligible to receive sub-grants from other eligible CBPF partners, they must be registered in GMS to be
selected as prospective sub-partners in funding proposals. It is also expected that sub-partners be vetted by
the main CBPF partners. Existing partners that are not currently registered in the UNPP also need to complete
that registration. Partners can register their prospective sub-partners in GMS at any time, from when the
partner’s due diligence is initially approved through to approval of a funding proposal. Once a funding proposal
has been approved, and the Grant Agreement issued, changes or additions of sub-partners will require a
formal project revision process and a corresponding Grant Agreement Amendment.

5.4.2. Performance Index

213. The Performance Index (PI) is a key accountability tool and allows OCHA to assign an up-to-date rolling risk
level to each partner. The PI considers a combination of the outcomes of the initial CA as well as the outcomes
of the assessment of the partner’s performance in the implementation of SHF-funded projects and Grant
Agreements.
214. The PI tool guides the SHF in assessing the implementation of each project through the complete cycle from
initial submission of the proposal through to closure. The PI assesses seven key components of each project:
i. quality and timeliness of submission of project documents (proposals and budget)
ii. quality and timeliness of implementation against approved targets (monitoring activities)
iii. soundness and effectiveness of internal controls during implementation (financial spot checks)
iv. quality and timeliness of narrative reporting
v. quality and timeliness of financial reporting and financial management

36
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

vi. frequency, timeliness and justification of project revision requests

vii. audit findings

215. The score assigned to each of the above is summarized in a Performance Index score for each project. The
PI score for each project is captured in the GMS and is used, alongside the capacity assessment score, to
determine the current (rolling) risk level of the partner. The PI score(s) of a partner may, over time, reach a
point where the risk level of the partner needs to be adjusted – for instance, a partner with a medium risk
level can move either to a lower risk level in case of consistently good performance, or a higher risk level
where there are consistent concerns about performance. In these cases, the GMS will suggest updating the
partner risk level (PI-recommended risk level). The SHF reviews and validates partners’ PI-recommended
risk levels on a regular basis, at least every six months and, where appropriate, more frequently (e.g., ahead
of launching a new allocation or prior to allocating new funding to the partner). If the HFU disagrees with the
PI-recommended risk level for a valid reason, the GMS suggestion to adjust the partner’s risk level can be
disregarded by entering a justification into the system.
216. The more projects a partner implements, the more its current risk level will be determined by project PI scores.
The relative weight of the CA score in the assigned risk level will gradually decrease as the number of projects
implemented increases. Similarly, the PI score of more recent projects will carry more weight than the PI
scores of older projects. This dynamic approach to the assignment of risk levels is designed to incentivize
good programmatic and financial performance in project implementation and to allow partners that become
eligible while initially deemed high risk to gradually improve and lower the assigned risk level by demonstrating
good performance.
217. Conversely, if a partner consistently performs poorly through the implementation of projects, its PI scores
may eventually lead to the assignment of a higher risk level, and in some cases to the point where the eligibility
threshold is no longer achieved, and the partner is deemed ineligible. In such cases, to regain eligibility, the
partner will need to apply again for the eligibility process at least six months after being rendered ineligible,
provided it can demonstrate that the elements that caused the poor performance have been addressed. The
SHF, on behalf of the HC, will inform the partner of changes in the risk level, including potential suspension.
More details on modalities for re-assessment are included in the Eligibility Guidance Note (annex 7).
218. If a partner commits serious breaches of compliance with the SHF rules and regulations as contained in the
Global Guidelines and annexes, or in the SHF Operational Manual, or in the Grant Agreement, the regular
performance assessment will be put on hold. In these cases, the partner’s eligibility and/or ongoing projects
may be suspended or terminated based on the provisions of the Non-Compliance Measures Framework
(annex 8), the Guidance Note on Financial Misconduct (annex 9), or the Guidance Note on Sexual Misconduct
(annex 10). Partners whose eligibility is suspended or terminated on the basis of concerns of Financial or
Sexual Misconduct are ineligible both as partners and sub-partners to the SHF. Under specific circumstances,
such suspension may be applied across several CBPFs.
219. The PI tool also applies to projects implemented by UN agencies, with the exception of audits and financial
spot-checks. UN projects are not subject to financial spot-checks by OCHA, nor to audits by third parties
commissioned by OCHA, in light of the UN system-wide single audit principle. Projects by UN agencies do,
however, receive a PI score based on all other components of the index. The PI score contributes to
determining the performance level of the UN agency and, consequently, the Operational Modalities applicable
to its projects.

5.4.3. Operational Modalities

220. The risk level assigned to NGO partners and the performance level assigned to UN partners have a direct
impact on how accountability is exercised in the management of each SHF-funded project. The control
mechanisms that are used to manage projects are determined based on three elements:
37
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

i. Partner assigned risk/performance level

ii. Project budget value
iii. Project duration
221. The combination of partner risk/performance level, project duration and budget determine the oversight
regime, or “operational modalities”, that are applied by OCHA to each SHF-funded project. The operational
modalities consist of tailoring the following:
NGO and UN partners:
i. Monitoring – The number and frequency of programmatic monitoring activities that the project is
subject to. Monitoring can be conducted through a variety of in-person and remote methodologies.
ii. Narrative reporting – The number and frequency of Progress Updates to be submitted by the
partner. Final Reports (FR) are required for all SHF-funded projects within three months of the
end of the project.
NGO partners (not applicable to UN partners):
i. Disbursements – Number of disbursements and amount of each tranche. Each partner will receive
the first instalment at the beginning of the project and will be entitled to request the next
disbursement(s) by submitting a financial statement once 70 per cent of the funds previously
received have been utilised. The amount of the first and subsequent disbursements, as well as
the number of disbursements, will be determined on the basis of the assigned risk level.
ii. Funding ceiling- The maximum amount that a partner can receive per project.
iii. Financial spot checks – The number and frequency of financial monitoring activities that the project
is subject to.
iv. Financial reporting - The number and frequency of Financial Reports to be submitted by the
partner. This is inherently linked to the disbursement modalities since partners are required to
submit an Interim Financial Report when requesting each successive disbursement, liquidating at
least 70 per cent of the previous amount disbursed. Final Financial Reports are required for all
CBPF-funded projects within three months of the end of the project.
v. Audit - Audits will be conducted on all partners except UN agencies, in accordance with the audit
plan developed by OCHA Headquarters in consultation with the HFU. In line with previous
recommendations and commitments, at the time of issuance of the Global Guidelines, OCHA
intends to pilot a risk-based audit approach - partners that meet specific requirements can be
subject to partner-based audits on an annual basis instead of project-by-project audits (see section
6.5). The audit plan will indicate the audit regime for each specific partner/year.

38
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

Table 1: Operational Modalities

1. NGO and RC/RC partners

Narrative
Maxi Financial reporting Monitoring
reporting
mum
amou
Disburs Interim
nt per 31-
Project duration ements Financi Finan Au
Risk Level Project value (thousand USD) proje Jan Fin Fin Projec
(months)** (in % of al Prog cial dit
ct (Cale al al t
total) Report ndar ress spot-
(thous (for Rep Rep monit
year Repo chec
and additional repor ort ort oring
disburseme rt k
USD) ting)
nts)

NGOs

≤ 250 - 60-40 Yes Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1 1

<6
> 250 500 50-50 Yes Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1 1

≤ 400* - 50-50 Yes Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1 1

High 6 (incl.) - 12
40-40-
> 400 700 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes 1 1
20
As
40-40- pe
≤ 400 - Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes 1 1
20 r
12 (incl.) – 24 pla
40-30- n
> 400 1,000 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes 2 2
30

≤ 250 - 100 - Yes Yes Yes - -

<6
> 250 700 80-20 Yes Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1 -

Medium ≤ 400 - 100 - Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1 -

6 (incl.) - 12
> 400 1,000 80-20 Yes Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1 1

≤ 400 - 80-20 Yes Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1 1

39
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

12 (incl.) – 24
> 400 1,500 60-40 Yes Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1 1

≤ 900 - 100 - Yes Yes 1 mid Yes - -

< 12
> 900 - 80-20 Yes Yes Yes 1 mid Yes - -
Low

≤ 900 - 100 - Yes Yes 1 mid Yes - -

12 (incl.) – 24
> 900 - 80-20 Yes Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1 1

* New partners eligible to receive funding for the first time and assessed as high risk can apply for only one project, for a maximum of 12 months. After the Final Financial and Narrative Reports
for the first project are submitted and approved by OCHA, and provided no red flags have been identified, additional project proposals can be submitted, and the regular Operational Modalities
apply.

** Maximum project duration is 24 months. Cost and No-Cost Extensions may not extend the duration of a project beyond 24 months. If following a Cost or No-Cost Extension additional
monitoring and reporting is required in line with the Operational Modalities, the corresponding changes will be made in the GMS to ensure oversight activities are conducted.

Cumulative allocations to high risk partners should not exceed $800,000 (projects less than 6 months) or $1,300,000 (projects longer than 6 months).

Cumulative allocations to medium risk partners should not exceed $1,300,000 (projects less than 6 months) or $1,800,000 (projects longer than 6 months).

2. UN partners

Financial reporting Narrative reporting Monitoring

Project duration Project value
Performance Level 31-Jan
(months)*** (thousand USD) Final Progress Final
(Calendar Project monitoring
year reporting) Report Report Report

UN agencies

Very Poor (0.00 –

No allocation
49.99)

≤ 250 Yes Yes - Yes 1

Poor <6
> 250 Yes Yes - Yes 1
(50.00-69.99)
≤ 400 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1

6 (incl.) - 12 > 400 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1

40
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Somalia HF Operational Manual

≤ 400 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1

12 (incl.) – 24
> 400 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 2

≤ 250 Yes Yes - Yes -

<6
> 250 Yes Yes - Yes

Average ≤ 400 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1

(70.00-89.99) 6 (incl.) - 12
> 400 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1

≤ 400 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1

12 (incl.) – 24
> 400 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 2

≤ 900 Yes Yes 1 mid52 Yes -

Good < 12
> 900 Yes Yes 1 mid53 Yes -
(90.00-100.00)

≤ 900 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes -

12 (incl.) – 24
> 900 Yes Yes 1 mid Yes 1

52 1 progress report required for projects with 6 months duration (inclusive) and longer. No progress report required for projects with less than 6 months duration.
53 1 progress report required for projects with 6 months duration (inclusive) and longer. No progress report required for projects with less than 6 months duration.
41
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

222. In line with the Operational Modalities set out in the tables above, the number and amount of each
disbursement for NGO projects, as well as narrative and financial reporting requirements, will be stipulated
in the Grant Agreement. In the case of CEs and NCEs if the increase in budget and/or project duration
changes the applicable operational modalities, the Grant Agreement Amendment will outline the new
control mechanisms applicable to the revised project. In the case of CEs, the additional budget will be
disbursed a) only after 70 per cent of the original project budget has been liquidated and b) according to
the new operational modalities applicable to the whole project, including its original parameters and the
extension. CEs and NCEs cannot extend project duration beyond the maximum duration of projects of 24
months.
223. The Operational Modalities represent minimum standards. Each Fund can set stricter limits if deemed
necessary in consideration of the specific country context. Stricter operational modalities are approved at
the discretion of the HC, in consultation with the AB, and form an integral part of a Fund-specific
Operational Manual. As part of more stringent operational modalities, individual Funds can consider more
frequent assurance activities, smaller disbursement tranches, the introduction of a lower maximum ceiling
for grants to new partners, or a maximum ceiling for all active grants pertaining to any given partner at any
one time, as examples.
224. Under exceptional circumstances, a Fund can request a derogation from the minimum standards set out
in the Operational Modalities, to apply less stringent oversight measures to a specific partner and project,
for example, regarding the “Maximum amount per project”, “Maximum duration” and regime of
“Disbursements”. Such derogations will be based on solid programmatic justifications and a balanced
assessment of risk, duly explained and formally recommended by the HC for written approval by the OCHA
Executive Officer through an ad-hoc waiver.

5.4.4. Monitoring
225. Monitoring is defined as the systematic and regular process of collecting, verifying and triangulating
information to assess progress made against project outputs and activities, bearing in mind accountability
to affected people and donors. Information gathered is used to make informed decisions and strengthen
partnership and coordination.
226. The main purpose of monitoring is to assess progress made towards set targets and to verify the accuracy
of reports submitted by partners. Monitoring also contributes to the assessment of results of an allocation.
Building on the principles, SHF monitoring has the following key objectives:
i. Verify partner progress in delivering project outputs and activities (as per log frame and work
plan), cross-cutting themes and the effectiveness of humanitarian programming, including all
pillars of protection (including accountability to affected people and PSEA), gender equality and
persons with disabilities, the assisted people targeting process, the use of resources (as per
budget) and the internal monitoring and reporting systems.
ii. Triangulate information collected through other means, identify needs and trends in
humanitarian operations and reflect on best practices and lessons learned using findings and
recommendations for results management, risk mitigation and public information.
iii. Strengthen partnership and coordination between OCHA, the partner and the local authorities,
and engage and seek feedback from affected communities.

227. The main principle for monitoring is that all recipient organizations are subject to monitoring by the Fund.
While requirements will not be identical, it should be recognized that the HC needs reassurance of project
performance, regardless of the type of partner.

42
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

228. Ad hoc donor visits to projects could be organized, subject to HFU monitoring plans and in coordination
with the AB and funded partners.
Roles and responsibilities

229. The HC is responsible for ensuring that a representative sample of projects are effectively monitored
through appropriate methods. The HFU is responsible for coordinating monitoring efforts and ensuring that
monitoring of projects is carried out.
230. The HFU shall calculate the expected costs of monitoring and reporting activities based on the planned
volume of activities and timeframe. These costs shall be included in the HFU cost plan as a direct cost of
the Fund.
231. The HFU coordinates and participates in field monitoring visits and should work closely with
clusters/sectors and/or other relevant coordination platforms in devising procedures for monitoring. A
monitoring plan should be developed by the HFU following the allocation process and the establishment
of a new portfolio of projects. The monitoring plan may be adjusted in accordance with changes in the
operational context and information gathered through reporting. The key responsibilities of the OCHA
County Office / HFU regarding monitoring include:
i. Develop and maintain a comprehensive monitoring plan which reflects the minimum
requirements of the Operational Modalities;
ii. To the extent possible, work with cluster/sector coordinators, other coordination platforms, and
subject matter experts (for example, the Cash Working Group, gender, GBV and disability
experts) in ensuring that monitoring is optimized with technical inputs;
iii. Develop terms of reference and contract external expertise to undertake third-party monitoring
or remote monitoring as required;
iv. Undertake field on-site monitoring missions in line with the monitoring plan in collaboration with
OCHA field offices (sub-offices);
v. Review and analyse information collected through monitoring activities and reporting.

232. Minimum monitoring arrangements for projects will be determined based on the assigned risk level for
NGO partners and on the performance assessment for UN partners, as described above and set out in
the Fund’s operational modalities. Monitoring achievements as compared to plan will be reported on each
Fund’s Annual Report. In addition, ad-hoc monitoring visits can be conducted as necessary. Monitoring of
UN agency projects is mandatory and should be based on a sampling methodology considering country-
specific factors, which can be determined at the country-level according to specific agreements outlined
by the HC and the AB. The monitoring mechanism can be tailored to the type of project to be implemented
(for example: stakeholder satisfaction survey for pipeline projects).
Process and monitoring tools
233. Taking into consideration that partners’ own project management systems are the backbone of monitoring,
one of the objectives of SHFCBPF monitoring tools is to provide an additional level of verification of project
implementation and its contribution to the overall “collective” impact of the corresponding allocation.
234. The partners are required to describe the intended tools for internal project monitoring in the project
proposal. In addition, SHF conducts programmatic and financial monitoring of the projects in line with the
minimum standards set out in the Operational Modalities. Such monitoring activities, their schedule and
modalities are outlined in the monitoring plan developed by the HFU. The following represent the tools
most commonly used by SHF for project monitoring:
i. Field site monitoring - Field site monitoring, implemented by OCHA and supported by
clusters/sectors and other subject matter experts, is critical to verify that projects are delivering
against targets and to allow the HC and other stakeholders to assess qualitative aspects of
43
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

programme implementation. As there are limitations to what can be observed through site
visits, additional information may be collected through other means. While field monitoring will
not attempt to make evaluative assessments of projects, it is essential to select an approach
that covers issues beyond the delivery of project outputs. Field monitoring visits should, at a
minimum, collect information that: (i) assesses the timeliness of the overall project
implementation, (ii) verifies reported results, and (iii) assesses progress on key project
activities.

ii. Financial Spot Check (FSC) - Financial spot checks will be conducted to assess the soundness
of the internal controls and the accuracy of the financial records of the NGOs and RC/RC
partners. On-site financial spot checks by the HFU and special audits by external audit
companies may be conducted as per the Operational Modalities or whenever warranted due to
concerns about the functioning of the partner’s internal controls. In instances when it is not
feasible to conduct a physical FSC due to insecure and highly volatile environments with
restricted access or other compelling reasons, remote FSC can be conducted as a last resort
upon agreement between the HFU, partners and audit companies (where involved).

iii. Third-party monitoring - Third-party monitoring is one of the appropriate monitoring approaches
when access is limited in countries or regions of operation. This approach enables the Funds
to obtain independently verified information about the status of implementation of projects,
typically in high-risk contexts and with particular emphasis on the achievement of project
outputs. The approach combines field visits and desk reviews of available documentation (e.g.,
project proposals and any other relevant information/documentation). The focus of third-party
monitoring is to verify that agreed activities are being implemented and associated outputs
delivered.

The analysis considers the expenditure rates per partner, the average of accomplishment of
indicators based on monitoring reports per project using the SHF TPM template. As such,
verification of implementation also involves the scrutinizing of relevant project documents
such as monitoring and evaluation plans, beneficiary registers and contact lists, copies of
vouchers etc. as well as taking of GPS tagged photos of created assets and goods distributed.

During the field visit, the focus is on project activities, inputs and outputs targeted in the project
document, while consulting the direct beneficiaries, people from the area who did not directly
benefit from the project, staff from the recipient agency that received SHF funding and, if
applicable, it’s implementing partners, other aid agencies working in the same area and local
authorities.

For this monitoring, a standard template has been developed at the global level for use during
field visits by OCHA staff. However, OCHA Somalia has modified the template further to
provide for collection of additional qualitative information by OCHA staff, Clusters and third
party monitors.

iv. Remote monitoring - Remote monitoring is appropriate when it is not feasible to conduct
physical project visits and when additional assurance is sought. Call centres can be established
to collect statistics and record observations from key informants and affected communities
about project outputs and satisfaction with overall project progress and implementation. They
can operate in safe locations and may conduct telephone interviews with key informants using

44
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

structured multiple-choice questionnaires. All information collected can be captured directly in

a web-based platform hosted by the call centre operator using validation logic, thereby
providing real-time progress information on projects that can be shared with HFU. In
exceptional cases, for example, following the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, Funds can adopt
other forms of remote monitoring such as desk reviews of scanned documents, selected calls
to partners, or videoconferences to verify programmatic and financial aspects of projects. For
such exceptional cases in which remote monitoring becomes the main methodology for a
certain period, endorsement by the HC/AB is required.

235. Following monitoring activities, HFUs score the quality of project implementation and financial
management. These scores feed into the overall Partner Performance Index as described above in
paragraph 5.4.2 and may lead to a change in the partner’s risk level.
236. Monitoring activities may also produce findings and recommendations from the HFU for the partner. HFUs,
at their discretion and in consultation with the partner, may identify critical recommendations that require
follow-up. Such follow-up may take the form of corrective measures that partners commit to implementing
within a timeframe communicated to the HFU. The HFU follows up on the implementation. Lack of
implementation of agreed actions may lead to a non-compliance scenario, as described in annex 8.
237. Monitoring findings may also raise concerns about non-compliance with the provisions of the Grant
Agreement or CBPF and SHF guidelines, in which case they may be dealt with in accordance with annex
8. When monitoring activities uncover suspicions of fraud or credible allegations of wrongdoings, the HFU
may inform the Oversight and Compliance Unit in the CBPF Section at OCHA HQ in line with SOPs for
fraud and misconduct.
238. Implementing partners are required to provide the requested staffing lists and contact lists of
beneficiaries per project for remote call monitoring and other assurance activities within 90 days
after the signature of the grant agreement.
Remote call monitoring process:
i. Telephone interviews are conducted with key informants, using structured multiple-choice
questionnaires guided by a decision tree developed by OCHA Somalia in consultation with Cluster
representatives.
ii. Lists of phone numbers are provided by IP through OCHA Somalia;
iii. Interviews are captured directly in a web-based platform hosted by the Call Centre Operator using
validation logic;
iv. Real time progress on the assignment through the web-based platform is provided;
v. Rate of feedback from beneficiaries in liaison with OCHA Somalia is provided;
vi. Reports for each project, stating observations and statistics on respondents’ replies to
questionnaires are prepared.

To develop this application, a list of key informants to be contacted is identified. Subsequently, for each
of the informant type and cluster, specific questionnaires are used, including a core questionnaire for
each informant as well as specific questions depending on the type of informants and clusters.

Every implementing partner is required to provide the requested contact lists of beneficiaries per
project, when requested by the OCHA Somalia HFU. This is provided prior to any call campaign, using
the beneficiary contacts template. OCHA Somalia HFU identifies the key activities to be monitored and
also determines the number of key informant contact details to be collected.

45
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

5.4.5. Reporting
239. CBPFs require robust reporting by partners to ensure that activities carried out are on track toward
proposed project objectives. To the extent possible, UN agencies and national and international NGOs
are treated equally in terms of reporting requirements.
240. Narrative and financial reporting requirements for fund-recipient organizations are determined according
to the Operational Modalities described above. Narrative and financial reports are submitted through the
GMS in the corresponding templates, including the Project Budget and Financial Reporting Tool (annex
11, Project Budget and Financial Reporting Tool 54 and annex 12, Narrative Reporting Template).
241. When the project budget is disbursed in more than one tranche, NGO partners are required to submit
Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) to reflect expenditures incurred for project activities when at least 70 per
cent of the amount disbursed in the previous tranche(s) has been spent. Review and clearance of the IFRs
will trigger disbursement of the next tranche. For projects ongoing on 31 December, NGO partners are
required to submit an additional IFR to reflect expenditures incurred for project activities up to 31
December. This additional IFR is due by 31 January of the following year. Upon completion of the project,
a Final Financial Report (FFR) covering the entire implementation period shall be submitted within 90 days
of the end of implementation (including any approved extension).
242. UN agencies are required to submit IFRs to reflect expenditures incurred for project activities up to 31
December of each year by 31 January of the following year. IFRs are required to be submitted every
calendar year until the submission of the FFR. Upon completion of the project, a FFR covering the period
between inception and completion of the project shall be submitted by 30 June of the following year.
243. NGO partners are required to submit Progress Report(s) per the Operational Modalities. Upon completion
of the project, a narrative FR shall be submitted within 90 days after the project end date.
244. UN agencies are required to submit narrative FRs within 90 days after the project end date. If the duration
of the project is between 6 (inclusive) and 24 months, UN agencies will also submit a Progress Report to
reflect achievements at the midpoint of the project implementation.
245. CBPFs promote the use of standardized output indicators for all recipient organizations. In addition to
standard and custom indicators, CBPFs encourage the use of global standard indicators where
appropriate to allow for cross-Fund aggregation and comparison of project-related data. Reporting will be
linked to the corresponding indicators set out in the project proposal.

5.4.6. Auditing
246. External audit is an oversight mechanism and an essential component of accountability. It enhances
transparency and promotes sound financial management of resources allocated through the SHF
247. All NGO partners receiving funds from SHF are subject to external audits commissioned by OCHA. UN
agencies are subject to audit by the UN oversight bodies and, as relevant, by other mechanisms
established by their respective governing bodies. In line with the single audit principle, SHF-funded
projects implemented by UN agencies are not audited by OCHA but through the oversight entities of each
UN agency.
248. External audits allow OCHA and the HC to obtain evidence-based assurances on the use of funds

54
For Funds administered by MPTF Office, UN agencies are required to report to MPTF Office according to the applicable MOU,
i.e., annually as of 31 December, by 31 May of the following year. At the time of issuance of the Global Guidelines, OCHA and
MPTF Office are in discussions on the transition of the MPTF Office’s administrative role.
46
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

transferred to NGOs. External audits help to mitigate financial risks, including misuse of resources and
fraud; identify weaknesses in financial and operational management and recommend critical
improvements, and identify ineligible expenditures. Findings provide essential feedback to the partner,
promoting continuous improvement of NGOs’ financial and operational management and performance,
and enabling the HC to make better-informed funding decisions.
249. Audit findings feed into the Performance Index of the project, as described above in paragraph 5.4.2, and
may eventually lead to a change in the partner’s risk level.
250. OCHA follows up on the audit findings and recommendations. HFUs, at their discretion, The HFU may
identify critical recommendations that require follow-up. Such follow-up may take the form of corrective
measures that partners commit to implementing within a timeframe to be communicated to the HFU. The
HFU follows up on the implementation. Lack of implementation of agreed actions may lead to a non-
compliance scenario as outlined in annex 8.
251. Audit findings may also raise concerns about non-compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement
or CBPF guidelines, in which case they may be dealt with in accordance with annex 8. When audits
uncover suspicions of fraud or credible allegations of wrongdoings, the HFU may inform the Oversight and
Compliance Unit in the CBPF Section at OCHA HQ in line with SOPs for fraud and misconduct.
252. OCHA has committed to introducing a risk-based approach to audits in line with previous
recommendations from UN oversight bodies and the PFWG. The risk-based approach establishes criteria
to identify which partners will be subject to project-by-project audits and which partners will be subject to
a periodic partner-based audit. Criteria include the assigned partner risk level, opinion of previous audits,
period since previous audits, and amount of funding to the partner in a year, amongst others.55

5.4.7. Non-compliance measures

253. Through the accountability arrangements and risk management mechanisms outlined in this chapter, the
HC aims to safeguard the programmatic and financial management of the Fund. However, there may be
instances of non-compliance by partners with the requirements contained in the Global Guidelines, the
Fund-specific Operational Manual, and/or the Grant Agreement.
254. Instances of non-compliance may include, but are not limited to:
i. Overdue financial or narrative reports
ii. Delay in refund, or non-refund of unspent balance or ineligible expenditure
iii. Critical (high risk) and/or repeated audit findings; qualified or adverse audit opinion
iv. Critical and/or repeated findings from the capacity assessment, monitoring, financial spot-
checks, narrative or financial reporting
v. Poor performance in the programmatic and financial management of SHF projects
vi. Improper management of sub-partners and/or sub-contractors
vii. Lack of cooperation with monitoring visits, financial spot checks, audits or investigations
viii. Breach of other obligations under the SHF regulations (e.g., violation of humanitarian principles
and code of conduct)56
255. In these instances, the HC or OCHA may take progressive measures to ensure that non-compliance is
corrected. Suggested progressive measures for addressing different non-compliance instances are
outlined in the Non-Compliance Measures Framework (annex 8). The annex provides a guiding framework
that each Fund can apply on a discretionary basis. The HC or OCHA will communicate to the partner about

55
For more information on the audit approach and process refer to chapter 6, section 6.8.
56
GA Res 46/182 and https://cdu.unlb.org/UNStandardsofConduct/CodeofConduct.aspx
47
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

the measures imposed, the reasons, and the potential conditions for lifting such measures. If non-
compliance persists, the HC may suspend the partner’s eligibility to receive funding.
256. Partners whose eligibility is suspended due to non-compliance measures, as well as due to alleged fraud
or sexual misconduct, are not eligible to sit on the Fund’s AB. In case such partners were AB members at
the time of suspension, their membership will be suspended or terminated, and a new member will be
nominated though a process set out by the HC.

5.4.8. Fraud and other incidents involving loss

257. SHF partners have a responsibility to uphold the UN and OCHA’s zero tolerance for abuse and
misconduct, including fraud and other corrupt practices. Partners’ obligations in this regard are contained
in the Grant Agreement (annexes 13 and 14) and are outlined in detail in the CBPF Partner Guidance
Note on Financial Misconduct (annex 9). Partners are responsible for ensuring these obligations are
fulfilled with reference to their personnel, resources and actions, but also with reference to personnel,
resources and actions of sub-partners, contractors and vendors. Failure by the partner to take effective
measures to prevent fraud or the failure to report immediately, ensure accountability at all levels and
investigate credible allegations constitute grounds for termination of the Grant Agreement(s) and
suspension of eligibility.
258. Suspected or alleged fraudulent acts can be reported confidentially to the OCHA Head of Office or other
members of the HFU, either by e-mail or in person or through any other appropriate means. Incidents can
also be reported through the feedback and complaints mechanism put in place by each Fund, or through
the Hotline service of the United Nations Office for Internal Oversight Services
(https://oios.un.org/content/contact-us).
259. OCHA takes all suspicions or allegations of fraud and misconduct extremely seriously. Should these be
deemed credible and affect an NGO partner, OCHA’s EO will take a decision to trigger a fraud inquiry or
agree to a partner self-investigation and, where appropriate, take conservative measures to safeguard UN
resources. Fraud inquiries are conducted within a framework for response to misconduct jointly agreed
with OIOS. All fraud inquiries are either conducted by OIOS or, in the case of partner self-investigations
and independent forensic audits, reviewed by OIOS. Following completion of a fraud inquiry, OCHA will
attempt an amicable settlement, only where appropriate, and proceed with financial closure of cases. In
case of suspicions or allegations of fraud and misconduct related to a UN partner or one of its sub-partners,
the accountability framework of the affected UN partner will take effect, and the UN partner’s own
investigative capacity will be utilized to conduct appropriate inquiries. Whilst OIOS does not review the
investigations conducted by UN entities, OCHA may inform OIOS of a case, including actions taken and
settlement options.
260. Partners also have an obligation to report incidents of loss not related to fraud. While partners are expected
to take effective measures to prevent occurrences of theft, diversion, looting and/or damage, these
incidents may occur outside the partner’s control. These incidents of loss must be reported in writing, and
any impact on goods/services to OCHA-funded projects.

5.4.9. Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

261. CBPFSHF partners have a responsibility to uphold the UN and OCHA’s zero tolerance for abuse and
misconduct, including Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA). Partners are obliged to comply with all
requirements in the UN Standards of Conduct (https://conduct.unmissions.org), and to act in compliance

48
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

with the UN Protocol on SEA Allegations involving partners.57 Partner’s obligations in these regards are
contained in the Grant Agreement (annexes 13 and 14) and are outlined in detail in the CBPF Partner
Guidance Note on Sexual Misconduct (annex 10). Partners are responsible for ensuring these obligations
are complied with in reference to their personnel, resources and actions, but also in reference to
personnel, resources and actions of sub-partners, contractors and vendors. Failure of the partner to take
effective measures to prevent SEA or the failure to report immediately and investigate credible allegations
that impact the SHF funding constitute grounds for termination of the Grant Agreement(s) and suspension
of eligibility.
262. Suspected or alleged incidents can be reported confidentially to the OCHA Head of Office or other
members of the HFU, either by e-mail or in person or through any other appropriate means. Incidents can
also be reported to the SHF feedback and complaints mechanism or the Hotline service of the United
Nations Office for Internal Oversight Services (https://oios.un.org/content/contact-us) partners and sub-
partners, including contractors and vendors, are required to announce methods where potential victims of
SEA can report misconduct.
263. OCHA takes all potential suspicions or allegations of SEA extremely seriously. Should these be deemed
credible and affect an NGO partner, OCHA’s EO will take a decision to trigger an inquiry or agree to self-
investigation by the partner and, where appropriate, take conservative measures to prevent further
potential harm. All inquiries into SEA allegations are either conducted by OIOS or, in the case of partner
self-investigations, reviewed by OIOS. OCHA takes a victim-centred approach to response to SEA and
will ensure that sufficient assistance is provided to the victim(s) of alleged incidents. Likewise, following
the completion of an inquiry OCHA will seek evidence of provision of victim support and of implementation
of corrective measures to prevent future recurrence. These are essential preconditions for the successful
settlement of SEA cases. In case of suspicions or allegations of SEA related to a UN partner or one of its
sub-partners, the accountability framework of the affected UN partner will take effect, and the UN partner’s
own investigative capacity will be utilized to conduct appropriate inquiries. While OIOS does not review
the investigations conducted by UN entities, OCHA may inform OIOS of a case, including actions taken
and settlement options.

6. Administration of CBPF financial resources

6.1. Rationale and basic principles
264. Clear segregation of duties underpins the administration of financial resources. This is critical to preserve
the country-driven nature of the Funds, transparency and ensure adequate internal controls, reducing the
risk of erroneous or inappropriate funding. HFUs, OCHA headquarters and partners have specific roles
and responsibilities, as follows:
265. HFUs:
i. Ensure the principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and accountability
are adhered to. This means that project inputs and financial requirements are commensurate
with planned activities and expected outputs and that the budget is a correct, fair and
reasonable reflection of the project’s /logical framework.
ii. Ensure the estimated project costs are reasonable in the specific country context of each Fund,
such that resources are used in the most efficient and transparent way.

57
The UN Protocol on SEA Allegations involving Partners can be found here:
https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/UN%20Protocol%20on%20SEA%20Allegations%20involving%20Implementing%20Partners%20-
%20English_Final.pdf.
49
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

266. HFU Finance Officers:

i. Conduct technical reviews to verify that project budgets are factually correct and coherent with
the project proposals and their logical frameworks.
ii. Flag concerns and seek clarifications on issues that may compromise compliance with UN
rules and regulations and affect financial transparency and accountability.
iii. Follow up with partners and verify any refunds due after completion of the projects.
267. HFU certifying Finance Officers:
Under Delegation of Authority (DoA) from OCHA’s Executive Officer, some financial clearance functions in
GMS can be performed by qualified Finance Officers in HFUs. This delegated authority cannot be sub-
delegated to another staff member, even temporarily. In the absence of the certifying Finance Officer at
HFU, the delegated authority will revert to the certifying Finance Officers in the CBPF Section at OCHA
headquarters.
i. Review and clear budgets for new projects and budget amendments during the lifetime of the
projects, flag concerns and seek clarifications from the partner, HFU Finance Officer and Fund
Manager, and ensure adherence to budgetary requirements outlined in the articles for HFUs
and HFU Finance Officers above.
ii. Clear Interim Financial Reports that do not trigger subsequent disbursements or recording of
expenditures in the UN financial system.
268. Certifying Finance Officers at OCHA headquarters:
i. Review and clear budgets for new projects and budget amendments during the lifetime of the
projects, flag concerns and seek clarifications from HFU, and ensure adherence to budgetary
requirements outlined in the articles for HFUs and HFU Finance Officers above.
ii. Review Grant Agreements, review and approve payment and refund documents, and effect
project closure processes in the UN financial system.
iii. Provide cash flow statements for allocation planning and annual certified financial statements
for each Fund.
iv. Review and certify Interim and Final Financial Reports for projects, release subsequent
disbursements to partners and record expenditures in the UN financial system.
v. Review and clear project audit reports.
vi. Undertake financial settlements related to cases of fraud or misappropriation of resources.

6.2. Project budgets

269. This guidance applies equally to all partners and provides a common framework for the appropriate
administration of financial resources provided for the implementation of approved projects. It defines
eligible and ineligible costs, direct and indirect costs, budget categories and the required breakdown of
budget lines.

270. In the budgeting process, partners are expected to:

i. Provide a correct and fair budget breakdown of planned costs that are necessary to implement
activities and achieve the objectives of the project. The budget shall be cost-efficient with a
focus on the CBPF project.
ii. Use and comply with the requirements of the project budget template and budget breakdown
(annex 11), in accordance with the classification and itemization of planned expenditures as

50
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

described below. Partners should ensure the same templates and guidance are adopted by
any sub-partners involved in the project and provided with financial resources.
iii. Provide a budget narrative that clearly explains the objective, rationale and content of each
budget line. Complementary documentation shall be provided to support the budget narrative.

Budget categories

271. The following should be included within each respective budget category:58
Category A: Staff and other personnel costs
i. S/...,taff, consultants and other personnel to be recruited and paid directly by the Partner should
be included in this budget category. The budget narrative shall specify the salary grade/level
for each staff/budget line, duty station, details of the position and the functions that will be
carried out in relation to project implementation, and cost breakdown (e.g., salary, social
security, medical and life insurance, hazard pay, etc.).
Note: Partners seconding staff from another organisation are required to notify the HFU in
writing prior to budget preparation.
Category B: Supplies, commodities, materials
ii. All consumables to be purchased under the project, including associated transportation, freight,
storage and distribution costs, should be included under this budget category. Cash and
voucher assistance to affected people directly implemented by the partner shall be budgeted
under this category. The partner should explain how the unit quantity and unit cost have been
estimated. For standard and low-value kits, there should be a description of the kit composition,
how the composition was agreed and how the cost of the individual component items has been
estimated. For non-itemized construction materials, the narrative will describe how construction
costs have been estimated on the basis of a standard prototype of building (e.g. latrine, health
post, shelter), type of materials (e.g. wood, prefabricated, brick/cement/concrete) and provide
a formula or rationale used for cost estimation (e.g. per square foot or metre, previous
experiences, etc.). All consumables budgeted under the project should clearly indicate the
project activities they are linked to.
Category C: Equipment
iii. This budget category covers non-consumables to be purchased under the project, including
associated transportation, freight and storage costs. The narrative should explain how the unit
quantity and unit cost have been estimated. For large and/or expensive equipment items, the
budget narrative should describe how the item(s) is necessary for the implementation of the
project. Non-consumables budgeted under the project should have a clear explanation of their
purpose and a clear rationale for their use in relation to project activities and should also include
supporting technical specifications.
Category D: Contractual services
iv. Services provided by vendors of commercial nature shall be budgeted under this category. For
Contractual Services under this budget category, the corresponding budget narrative should
provide a clear description of works and services to be contracted under the project with a
corresponding explanation of how the unit quantity and unit cost for each contract/budget line
have been estimated. The description should include the location and type of services to be
provided and demonstrate that they are directly linked to project activities. Associated fees

58
With regards to localization efforts, The SHF acknowledges the importance of the quality of funding and will ensure funding is
allocated fairly under the appropriate budget categories (including necessary costs for staffing, security, and safety) relevant to the
project and that directly contributes to the implementation of the project.
51
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

related to cash and voucher assistance that is delivered through a service provider should be
included in this category.
Category E: Travel
v. Costs related to travel of staff, consultants and other personnel-related to project
implementation should be budgeted under this category. For domestic and international travel,
the budget narrative should explain how the number of trips and the cost of each trip have been
estimated and should provide a clear rationale for how the proposed travel directly supports
project implementation.
Category F: Transfers and grants to counterparts
vi. This budget category is used to capture planned transfers and sub-grants to counterparts of
non-commercial nature. The budget narrative should include the name of the sub-partner,
explain the objectives and activities related to each transfer and/or sub-grant, and provide a
cost breakdown (to be uploaded to the documents tab of GMS as a separate file) in the same
categories as for the main partner’s budget (i.e., A. Staff and other personnel costs, B.
Supplies, commodities, materials, C. Equipment, D. Contractual services, E. Travel, F.
Transfers and grants to counterparts, and G. General operating and other direct costs). This
budget category shall only include direct project costs of sub-partners - the programme support
cost (PSC) of sub-partners should be covered within the PSC for the whole project, which
should be shared fairly between the partner and the sub-partner(s) in line with the stipulations
of the Grant Agreement.
Category G: General operating and other direct costs
vii. This budget category is for general operating expenses and other direct costs, as well as
contingency budget lines related to project implementation but not captured under other budget
categories.59 The budget narrative should explain how the unit quantity and unit cost have been
estimated for each budget line and how the costs are directly related to, and necessary for,
project implementation.
Eligible and Ineligible costs

Eligible costs

272. The following attributes define eligible costs:

i. Must be necessary and reasonable for the delivery of the objectives of the project
ii. Must comply with the principles of sound financial management, particularly the principles of
economy, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and accountability
iii. Must be identifiable in the accounting records and backed by original supporting evidence as
incurred in accordance with the approved project proposal and period, at the time of financial
spot checks and/or audit or at the time requested by OCHA.

273. Eligible costs include:

i. Staffing costs, including salaries, social security contributions, medical insurance, hazard pay
(when applicable) proportional to the project implementation period, and any other cost
included as part of the salary benefits package of the organization. Salaries and related costs
may not exceed the costs normally borne by the partner in other similar projects. The

59
For more guidance on the addition of contingency budget lines refer to chapter 4, section 4.4.
52
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

appropriate amount of staffing costs shall be determined by the context and the specific project
requirements rather than by any pre-determined set range or proportion of the total budget.
ii. Bonus (e.g., holiday bonus), if mandatory or considered as a legal cost that stems from local
government ordinances within the country context.
iii. Pension benefit/allowance, severance expense, annual leave encashment and similar items
that are part of standard staff entitlements but are paid only when the staff member is separated
(typically after the project has been completed) may be eligible. For such costs to be considered
eligible, they must be expensed within the project period and be recorded on or before the
project end date to a designated account within the organization for the purpose or be charged
to the fund centre if the partner has only one bank account. Since these entitlements are
typically accrued in relation to each complete year of employment, where the project duration
is other than an integer of years (for example, where the project has a duration of 9 months or
15 months), the cost charged to CBPF budget shall be calculated proportionately with the
remaining part to be covered by other funding sources.
iv. Costs for consultancies necessary for the implementation of the project.
v. Allowances and/or incentives to teachers and medical personnel can be deemed eligible based
on the country context and where their expertise and activities/services are not paid by the
government but are required to directly support project objectives.
vi. Hospitality expenses for training, events and meetings directly related to project
implementation, where project staff and external stakeholders participate.
vii. Support staff costs at the country level directly related to the project.
viii. Travel and subsistence costs, whether solely or shared, are directly linked to the project
implementation for project staff, consultants, and other personnel, provided the costs do not
exceed those normally borne by the partner.
ix. A contribution to the partner’s Country Office costs, as shared costs charged on the basis of a
well-explained calculation (including through the use of timesheets) or reasonable
apportionment system. Shared costs must be itemized either in the narrative for the budget line
or through a separate supporting document uploaded to GMS. See annex 16 for guidance on
allocation of shared costs.
x. Financial support to affected people as targeted within the project proposal, including cash and
voucher-based distribution.
xi. Costs for purchase of goods and services delivered to affected people as targeted within the
project proposal, including quality control, transport, storage and distribution costs.
xii. Costs related to non-expendable items (assets) such as equipment, information and
technology equipment for registration and similar field activities (including IT software licenses
directly relevant to project activities), medical equipment, water pumps and generators.
Duplicated costs for investment in the same equipment by the same partner under different
project budgets shall be ineligible. The HFU shall monitor asset inventories procured through
OCHA-funded projects, consider the utility life of such assets, and ensure there is no duplicated
and unjustified investment.
xiii. Expenditure incurred by the partner related to awarding contracts required for the
implementation of the project, such as expenses for the tendering process.
xiv. Costs incurred by sub-partners and directly attributable to the implementation of the project.
xv. Banks/funds transfer fees, cash and voucher assistance fees to affected people targeted by
the project and fees for payments to vendors for project activities can be eligible under the
relevant budget category or under category G. General Operating Expenditures. (Partners shall
establish a local bank account to directly receive CBPF funds transfer. In the case that the
partner chooses to receive funds from its HQ bank account, then the partner shall be
responsible for covering the transfer cost from its HQ to the local bank account via its
programme support cost).

53
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

xvi. Other costs derived directly from the requirements of the Grant Agreement such as monitoring,
reporting, evaluation, dissemination of information, translation, insurance and financial service
costs.
xvii. Costs paid during the 60 days liquidation period after the project end date that is directly linked
to project activities carried out during the project period and recorded in the partner’s
accounting system as pertaining to activities carried out during the project validity period.
xviii. If local legislation requires that the partner pays certain taxes, such taxes are deemed eligible.
However, if the local authority exempts a partner from paying taxes and the partner obtains a
refund of such taxes already paid, the corresponding amounts shall be refunded to OCHA
within the stipulated timeline.
xix. Any costs outside those described above but which the partner considers eligible can be
submitted for review by the OCHA HFU for exceptional consideration, in liaison with OCHA
headquarters. Such costs shall obtain well-documented prior approval in order to be deemed
as eligible costs.

274. On a case-by-case basis and depending on the objectives of the Fund, the HFU retains the flexibility to
consider the following costs as eligible at the time of finalising the project budget:
i. Government staff training as a component of a project activity that contributes to the
achievement of the project objectives.
ii. A reasonable level of visibility material of the partner in relation to the project funded.
iii. Purchase of vehicles when the cost of vehicle rental during the project period exceeds the cost
of vehicle purchase. In such cases, upon comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, the Fund can
cover the portion of the vehicle purchase cost that is proportional to the project duration against
the whole usable life of the vehicle.
iv. Depreciation costs for non-expendable/durable equipment used for the project proportional to
the project duration, for which the equipment cost is not funded in the current budget or prior
CBPF funding.
v. Equipment for the regular operations of the partner and which is also essential for the
implementation of the project.

Ineligible costs

275. The following costs are ineligible:

i. Costs not included in the approved budget or approved budget amendments.
ii. Costs incurred outside the approved implementation period, including any approved
amendment/extension to the period. Any new commitments incurred after the project end date
(even during the liquidation period) will be considered ineligible. All cash-for-work and
unconditional cash payments to beneficiaries constitute part of the project activities and should
be made within the approved project implementation period. Such payments outside the
approved implementation period will be considered ineligible.
iii. Debts and provisions for possible future losses or debts.
iv. Interest owed by the partner to any third party.
v. Items already financed from other sources.
vi. Purchases of land or buildings.
vii. Currency exchange losses. Any loss incurred by the partner due to exchange rate fluctuation
cannot be included as expenditure, i.e., partners cannot exceed the expenditures on the
approved budget line due to exchange loss.

54
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

viii. Cessions and rebates by the partner, contractors or staff of the partner of part of declared costs
for the project.
ix. Government staff salaries. Salaries to teachers and medical personnel (who are considered as
government staff) are ineligible.
x. Hospitality expenses unrelated to the project or for project staff only (without involving external
stakeholders).
xi. Incentives, mark-ups, or gifts to staff and Government officials, which are not mandatory or not
considered a legal cost that stems from local government ordinances within the country context.
xii. Fines and penalties.
xiii. Duties, charges, taxes (including VAT) recoverable by the partner.
xiv. Global evaluation of programmes.
xv. Audit fees of CBPF required audits – these costs are paid directly by CBPFs, and charged as
direct cost for the management of the Fund.
xvi. Costs related to internal auditing of the partner.

Exchange rates

276. The currency used for the purpose of the Grant Agreement, including for disbursement to the partner,
reporting and refunds, is the United States Dollars (USD). When undertaking financial transactions in
currencies other than USD, while the UN agency partner shall use UN Operational Rates of Exchange
(UNORE), the NGO partner shall use the most favourable official rate of exchange from one of the following
acceptable sources for all transactions related to the implementation of the project:
i. UN Operational Rate of Exchange (UNORE)
ii. Prevailing market rate by the respective federal bank or authorized currency exchange
iii. InforEuro

277. Partners should ensure that when using any one of the above exchange rates, a sound accounting system
that can track the transfer of funds is maintained.
278. Exchanges can only be allowed through the respective federal bank or an authorized currency exchange
entity, and partners are required to provide all supporting documents of the actual transactions to
substantiate the use of the exchange rate. The use of unofficial parallel market rates or black market rates
are not acceptable.
279. Mean or average exchange rates in use for other donors are not acceptable.
280. Partners cannot automatically dispose of exchange rate gains. Such gains should either be offset against
further disbursements from OCHA or returned to OCHA.
281. Any loss incurred by the partner due to exchange rate fluctuations cannot be included as an eligible project
expenditure and shall be absorbed by the partner.

Direct and indirect costs

282. There are two categories of eligible costs - direct and indirect costs.
Direct costs

283. Direct costs must be clearly linked to the project activities described in the project proposal and the logical
framework. They are the costs directly related to the implementation of the project. Direct costs include (a)
the costs of goods, services and equipment that directly benefit affected people, such as the costs of
supplies, materials, commodities and associated transportation, freight, storage and distribution costs,
cash and voucher assistance, and the personnel that directly provide services to the affected people; and
(b) the costs of inputs and activities that are necessary to enable the project’s main activities and the
achievement of the project’s objectives, such as personnel for coordination, project management,
55
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

procurement and logistics, as well as general operating costs.

284. Sharing costs between different donors and projects under a country operation of a partner is an
acceptable practice. The partner may share certain costs such as staff costs, office rental, utilities and
vehicle rental to support different projects.
Indirect costs

285. Indirect costs are also referred to as Programme Support Costs (PSC). PSC are the costs incurred by the
partner which cannot be traced unequivocally to specific activities, projects or programmes. These costs
typically include corporate costs (i.e., costs of headquarters, statutory bodies, legal services, IT systems,
general corporate risk management, compliance, procurement, accounting and recruitment systems, etc.).
286. PSC is charged as a maximum seven per cent of the approved direct costs of the project. PSC for NGO
and UN agency sub-partners involved in the implementation of a project must be covered within the
maximum 7 per cent for the whole project. As per the stipulations in the Grant Agreement, the partner is
required to ensure that any PSC is fairly distributed with any NGO and UN agency sub-partner in a manner
that is proportionate to the project budget and activities being undertaken by each party. The PSC section
in GMS allows for a breakdown of PSC between the partner and each NGO and UN agency sub-partner.

Itemization of budget lines (cost breakdown)

287. Each budget line requires the following cost breakdown:

i. Itemize each national and international staff, consultant and other personnel by function, and
provide unit quantity and unit cost (monthly or daily rates) for each staff position.60 The narrative
for each budget line should include details such as the type of staff position (national or
international), location, grade/level, and gross salary breakdown (to be provided either directly
in the narrative or as an annex uploaded in the documents tab in GMS), functions to be carried
out to contribute to the project implementation (Terms of References or Personal History
Profiles should not be included in the narrative, but can be provided as an annex uploaded in
GMS).
ii. Any budget line whose total value exceeds US$10,000 (as cumulative value) requires a clear
explanation of the calculation in the budget narrative.61 Meanwhile, as deemed necessary by
OCHA, the partner should also provide a breakdown of costs for items less than $10,000.
iii. Provide list of items and estimated cost per item for kits (as an annex) when the total budget
line value exceeds $10,000.
iv. When a budget line which exceeds $10,000 contains costs of multiple items, the partner should
upload a budget breakdown to GMS, listing item, unit quantity, unit cost and total cost.
v. In the case of construction works exceeding $10,000, only labour costs and known essential
materials may be budgeted and itemized, providing unit quantity and unit cost. The budget
narrative should explain how construction costs have been estimated on the basis of a standard
prototype of the building (e.g., latrine, health post or shelter), type of materials (e.g. wood,
prefabricated or brick/cement/concrete), and the formula or rationale used to estimate
construction cost (e.g., per square foot or metre or previous experiences).
vi. In the case of cash and voucher assistance, provide a budget narrative and budget breakdown
to indicate the number of assisted people/ individual households, unit cost, areas/regions
covered, etc. If the cash and voucher assistance is implemented by the main partner, the
transfer to the assisted people shall be budgeted under category B. Supplies, commodities and

60
Staff positions must be charged per unit. If staff costs are only partially charged to the given budget, this should be reflected in the
percentage (50 per cent of a staff, rather than half of a staff at 100 per cent).
61
Contingency budget lines and projects for the pre-position of funding for “48-hour response” are exceptions to this requirement at
initial project budget proposal stage; but shall fulfill this requirement before triggering the actual deployment and use of the budget.
56
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

materials, and the associated fees of a service provider shall be under category D. Contractual
services; if the cash and voucher assistance is implemented by sub-partner, all costs shall be
under category F. Transfers and grants to counterparts.
vii. Provide unit or quantity (e.g., 10 kits, 1,000 metric tons) and unit cost for commodities, supplies
and materials to be purchased. The budget narrative should properly reference unit measures
(length, volume, weight, area, etc.).
viii. Provide technical specifications for items whose unit cost is greater than $10,000;
ix. Provide technical specifications for items whose unit costs can greatly vary based on
specifications (e.g., for generators, a reference to the possible range of power would help
properly evaluate the accuracy of the estimated cost).
x. Provide details in the budget narrative so that the objective of the budget line can be clearly
identified.
xi. Itemize general operating costs (e.g., office rent, telecommunications, internet, utilities) for
project implementation, providing quantity and unit cost. A lump sum for operating costs is not
acceptable.
xii. Travel (in-country and international) shall indicate the number of trips and cost per trip.
xiii. Travel costs can be estimated as long as the calculation modality is clearly described in the
budget narrative (e.g., provide estimates on the number of trips, number of travellers, number
of travel days, daily subsistence allowance rates, terminal expenses, etc.)
xiv. Provide the list of items for globally standardized kits such as Post-exposure Prophylaxis Kits
and Inter-agency Emergency Health Kit.
xv. The partner should provide a cost breakdown in a spreadsheet to be uploaded in the
documents tab in GMS at the time of budget submission (annex 11).
i. The partner is responsible and accountable to ensure the budget(s) of the sub-partner(s)
adheres to the principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and
accountability. The partner must provide the name of the sub-partner before signing the Grant
Agreement and ensure the sub-partner(s) budget(s) are commensurate with the planned
activities and outputs and is reasonable in the specific country context. The sub-partner budget
should be provided as a single line under the budget category F. Transfers and grants to
counterparts. The breakdown details are not required to be provided in the budget tab of GMS
but shall be uploaded under the document tab of GMS. Meanwhile, at the request of OCHA
and/or the auditors, the partner is responsible and accountable to provide the necessary
detailed documentation to support the budget and expenditure incurred by the sub-partner. The
sub-partner’s budget and expenditure details must be available, if requested, at the same level
of detail and format applicable to the main partner. These documents must remain available
for at least 5 years after the project termination.

Budgets for pre-positioning of funding for “48-hour response”

288. The budgeting and use of pre-positioned funding to enable rapid response within 48 hours of a new,
sudden-onset emergency (see section 4.3) shall abide by the following:
i. The initial project proposal, when the partner is unable to elaborate the eventual budget
breakdown, may include the entire direct cost under category G. General operating and other
direct costs, along with the corresponding PSC.
ii. Before the deployment of funding, the partner must provide information about the situation,
needs, proposed response activities and corresponding budget utilisation, and obtain prior
written authorization from the HFU, who consults with the HC, OCHA HoO, sectors/clusters
and/or other relevant coordination platforms and stakeholders, as required.

57
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

iii. The HFU shall provide a written response to the partner within 48 hours of the partner’s request,
approving or rejecting the use of the pre-positioned funding, including any caveats and
conditions, including the amount of funding to be deployed, which may be all or part of the
amount pre-positioned. The date of HFU approval is the date from which expenditures can be
deemed eligible. The HC and the AB are notified.
iv. Within 20 working days of the approval of the 48-hour response, the original project proposal
shall be modified in GMS to reflect details of activities, people targeted and budget breakdown
and be formalized through a Grant Agreement Amendment.
v. The partner is required to meet normal financial and narrative reporting obligations and refund
any unspent balance upon the completion of the project.

Contingency budgets

289. For selected projects a contingency budget line (see section 4.4) may be added to enable partners to
facilitate a rapid response to unforeseen urgent humanitarian needs (including those outside of the original
scope of activities) in an evolving context.
i. The contingency budget line shall be under category G. General operating and other direct
costs.
ii. The contingency budget shall be a maximum of 4 per cent of the total direct project costs
exclusive of the contingency line.
iii. Before deployment of the contingency budget, the partner shall provide information on the
activities, people targeted and corresponding budget utilization, and ensure there is no
duplication of costs with other budget lines.
iv. The contingency budget line shall not be used to compensate for overspending or expansion
of other ongoing/planned activities.
v. Deployment of the contingency budget line requires prior written approval by the HFU (through
e-mail). The partner should communicate with the HFU regarding the new and unforeseen
needs to be addressed and the intended use of budget. Review and approval, when
appropriate, will be completed within 24 hours of the request.
vi. The project proposal shall be modified in GMS, to reflect the activities, people targeted, and a
detailed budget breakdown in relevant budget categories.
vii. Only if the contingency budget is used for expenditures in other budget categories in a way that
results in an increase above 20 per cent of the originally approved amounts of those categories,
a budget revision and Grant Agreement Amendment is required.
viii. Partners are required to provide a detailed breakdown of the utilization of the contingency
budget line in the financial and narrative reports.
ix. If all or part of the contingency budget line is not utilized in the project implementation period,
the remaining amount must be refunded at the time of financial reporting or audit as per
standard procedures.

6.3. Grant agreements

290. Standard Grant Agreement templates (annexes 13 and 14) available in the GMS must be used. No
changes in the articles of the Grant Agreement are allowed. The CBPF Grant Agreement template is
subject to revision from time to time as situations evolve.
291. Grant Agreements are prepared by HFUs. They are signed by the HC or a person with duly delegated
authority in the HC’s absence and counter-signed by the authorized representative of the partner as
recorded in the due diligence module of the GMS. They are then sent to OCHA HQ / CBPF Section Finance
Unit for final review prior to approval and signature by the EO (or a duly delegated officer).
58
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

292. The Grant Agreement includes the following annexes:

i. Project narrative (as approved by the HC);
ii. Project budget (as approved by the HC);
iii. Schedule of reporting.
293. The Grant Agreement becomes legally binding upon signature by all parties (firstly by the HC and the
partner, and finally by the EO). An electronic signature is acceptable.
294. Expenditures related to the approved project are eligible only between the start and end dates specified
in the Grant Agreement. At the request of the partner and upon confirmation by the HFU, the earliest start
date can be the date of budget clearance in GMS. Should the Grant Agreement not enter into force, the
partner assumes full liability for any expenditures incurred or committed.
295. For NGO partners, the Grant Agreement requires the use of a separate interest-bearing bank account with
an account title in the name of the partner to manage the funds received, ensuring that all transactions
related to the Grant Agreement remain traceable. If due to the country’s legal frameworks or other reasons,
the partner is unable to fulfil this requirement, it shall inform the HFU in writing of an alternative
arrangement that ensures that the transactions remain traceable and can be audited. The communication
shall be uploaded to the GMS and may be applicable to multiple projects and Grant Agreements of the
partner. The partner shall authorize access to OCHA to all bank records and accounts as required and
upon request, including the bank records and accounts of sub-partners.
296. For NGO partners, interest and other miscellaneous income earned related to the funding provided (such
as exchange rate gains and fees charged to potential bidders in certain country contexts) must be reported
in the financial statements and reimbursed to OCHA.62 If further disbursement to the partner from OCHA
is required to close the project, such income may be offset against that disbursement.

6.4. Project amendments

297. Project amendments are described under section 4.5, falling under three categories: reprogramming, no-
cost extension (NCE) and cost extension (CE). All are considered on a case-by-case basis. Depending
on the nature of the amendment, relevant GMS workflows will be activated by the HFU to allow the request
and revision. The HC, or the OCHA HoO if delegated, will make the final review and approval or rejection
of the request through the GMS.
298. To ensure that amendment requests can be given due consideration and resolved before the end of a
project, the initial request must be received no later than 30 days before the end of the project to be
admissible.
299. A signed Grant Agreement Amendment will be required in the following circumstances:
i. Change in duration of the project (no-cost extension)
ii. Changes to the existing project budget result in an increase of the amount in any budget
category above the 20 per cent variance allowed (reprogramming)
iii. Addition of new budget line(s) above the 20 per cent parameter for any budget category
(reprogramming)
iv. Changes that increase the approved total project budget (cost extension)
v. Addition of information on the deployment of funding pre-positioned for ‘48-hour response’ to
reflect the activities, people targeted, and a detailed budget breakdown (reprogramming);
vi. Change of banking information required to effect disbursements

62
For UN agency partners, unless otherwise agreed, any interest accrued on the CBPF funding shall be treated according to the UN
agency’s policies and procedures.
59
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

vii. Change (addition, removal or amendment) of sub-partners

viii. Any other changes that have financial or legal implications and are part of the Grant Agreement.
300. The following changes do not require a Grant Agreement Amendment, however, they are subject to
consultation with OCHA and will be approved in the GMS through the ‘approval without Grant Agreement
amendment’ feature:
i. Change in the project location, unless the entire project area has been changed
ii. Change in the number of assisted people, unless this changes the nature of the project
iii. Change in approved project activity, unless this changes the project objective and key result
iv. Addition of new budget line(s) within a budget category, provided that this does not exceed the
20 per cent parameter for the budget category and that the new budget line(s) is directly related
to the accomplishment of the project objectives.
Reprogramming

301. There are two types of acceptable budget revision to support reprogramming within the originally approved
total budget:
(a) Budget revision not exceeding 20 per cent increase for any budget category:
Revision of existing budget lines or the addition of new budget lines that does not exceed 20
per cent increase of any budget category does not require a Grant Agreement Amendment.
Within this limit and with prior consultation with the SHFOCHA, the partner has the flexibility to
make adjustments in GMS as long as all budget lines continue to relate directly to the scope
and objectives of the original project. The partner shall initiate a formal revision request through
the GMS, in consultation with the HFU if the 20 per cent increase involves the scaling up of
activities in a location that was not included in the GMS. See section 301 (i) below on change
of locations.

(b) Budget revision exceeding 20 per cent increase for any budget category:
Revision of existing budget lines or the addition of new budget lines that exceed 20 per cent
increase of any budget category requires a Grant Agreement Amendment. The partner shall
initiate a formal revision request through the GMS, in consultation with the HFU, for
consideration and approval by the HC.
No-Cost Extensions

302. An NCE refers to a situation where the period for project implementation of a previously approved project
is extended but without any change to the original amount of approved funding, to better meet the overall
objectives of the project. In response to changing circumstances in which the project is implemented. An
NCE shall be based on compelling evidence and justification and requires a Grant Agreement Amendment
to extend the duration of the project, with or without any changes to the project’s budget or activities. The
maximum project duration for CBPF projects is stipulated under sections 4.1 and 4.2.
Cost Extensions

303. A CE refers to a situation where the budget of a previously approved project is increased in response to
changing circumstances in which the project is implemented in order to better meet the overall objectives
of the project. ACE shall be based on compelling evidence and justification. The budget increase may or
may not be combined with an extension to the duration of project implementation. CE should not be utilized
to substitute the normal allocation process and to approve what would in effect be a new project. Rather,
they may provide some additional funding to an ongoing project to better achieve its objectives. A
maximum of 30 per cent of the original project budget may be allocated through cost extension.
304. The CE will require a Grant Agreement Amendment, following prior consultation with OCHA and based on
a compelling justification.
60
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

305. Following approval of a CE, the number of disbursements and the amount of each disbursement, as well
as reporting requirements for the extended project will be stipulated in the Grant Agreement Amendment.
The additional budget will be disbursed a) only after 70 per cent of the original project budget has been
liquidated and b) according to the Operational Modalities63 applicable to the whole project, including its
original parameters and the extension.

6.5. Audit of CBPF resources

306. Following the issuance of the Global Guidelines, OCHA will introduce the adoption of a risk-based
approach to the audit of CBPF resources provided to NGO partners, which combines project-based and
partner-based modalities. Learning through the pilot phase will inform the continuing refinement and
evolution of the approach.
307. On an annual basis, the circumstances of each partner will be assessed to determine the audit modality
to be applied.
i. Where a project-based modality is applicable, each project will be audited.
ii. Where a partner-based modality is applicable, a partner-based audit will be undertaken
covering all projects completed by the partner in the previous year.
iii. Irrespective of the audit modality chosen, each partner with one or more projects completed in
any year will be audited for that year, using one of the modalities.
308. The parameters that determine the audit modality include:
i. Partner risk level
ii. Opinion of previous audits
iii. Period since previous audit
iv. Amount of funding allocated to the partner in a year
309. The approach will be implemented at the Fund level, and each CBPF will develop its annual audit plan
based on the parameters outlined above. For partners that fall under the project-based modality, each
project with be audited. For partners that fall under the partner-based modality, a sample of projects, or
transactions within projects, will be selected for review by the auditor in consultation with the Funds. The
audit plans will also be analysed at OCHA HQ to assess (i) consistency and alignment with the agreed
parameters, including cases where a partner is moved from one modality to another, and (ii) feasibility of
implementation within required timelines.
310. The procurement of audit services is undertaken by CBPF Section and the OCHA HQ procurement team
in accordance with the United Nations procurement rules. The establishment and maintenance of Long-
term agreements (LTAs) will ensure the continuing availability of audit services in line with the global
portfolio of Funds, partners and projects. For each Fund, the HFU will initiate audit processes using the
services available under the LTAs in liaison with the OCHA procurement team. The costs of the audit
services will be covered by OCHA as a direct cost of the CBPFs.

6.6. Project closure

311. A project will be considered closed when the following conditions are met:
i. A narrative FR has been received and cleared by the HFU. Partners must submit the FR within
90 days after the project end date (including any approved extension). The HFU will clear the
FR within 30 days of receipt, in dialogue with the partner.

63
For further information on the Operational Modalities refer to chapter 5, section 5.4.3.
61
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

ii. Final Financial Report (FFR) covering the entire implementation period has been received and
cleared by the HFU and the CBPF Section Finance Unit. NGO partners must submit the FFR
within 90 days after the end of project implementation (including any approved extension). UN
agencies shall submit the FFR by 30 June of the year following completion of the project. Once
the FFR has been received, it will be cleared by the HFU and the CBPF Section Finance Unit
within 30 days.
iii. Outstanding commitments have been paid within the liquidation period of 60 days after the
project end date.
iv. For NGO projects, the submission of the FFR has been accompanied by a list of any asset
purchased with a value above $1,500, in the asset registry provided by OCHA.
v. For NGO projects, audit requirements have been successfully completed: project-based audits
shall normally be completed within 90 days from clearance of FFR; partner-based audits shall
normally be completed within 90 days from the determination of the audit plan.

312. The HFU and the CBPF Section will review and close the project within 60 days from receipt of the audit
report.
Asset management

313. Any asset purchased under a CBPF project is considered property of the partner and will remain with the
partner. The partner shall be responsible for the proper use, custody, maintenance and care of the assets,
and fulfil any obligations arising from their ownership, such as taxes, insurance and any registrations
required by the laws of the local government. The UN shall not be responsible for any damage, loss, repair
or insurance of the asset.
314. The partner shall notify OCHA about the end use or disposal of assets through the asset registry provided
by OCHA. The use of assets shall be solely limited to humanitarian work. Assets cannot be used or
donated for profit-making purposes. Any related development, such as handover or transfer of ownership,
shall be discussed with OCHA in advance. See annex 16 for the format of the asset registry.
Refunds

315. Following submission of the FFR by the partner and approval by CBPF Section Finance Unit, any unspent
balance shall be refunded by the partner, within 30 days from formal notification through the GMS. Proof
of payment shall be uploaded in the GMS by the partner and acknowledged by OCHA.
316. Further adjustment to the total amount to be refunded may arise through the audit process, in cases where
some expenditures are deemed ineligible. In such cases partner shall refund any additional amount within
30 days from new formal notification through the GMS. Proof of payment shall be uploaded in the GMS by
the partner and acknowledged by OCHA.
317. Where the refund due after audit does not exceed $250, the requirement can be waived. The CBPF
Section Finance Unit will trigger and approve the waiver in the GMS.
318. Lack of compliance with the requirement to make refunds within the specified timelines will be subject to
the application of the Non-Compliance Measures Framework (annex 8) and may lead to suspension of
eligibility for future funding.

6.7. Derogations and exceptions

319. The provisions contained in the Global Guidelines and annexes, and the Fund-level Operational Manuals,
constitute the normative framework for the administration of the CBPFs.
320. The Global Guidelines represent minimum standards that all CBPFs must comply with. The HC, in
consultation with the AB, has the prerogative to deviate from the administrative provisions, provided that
62
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

the minimum standards are met. On the contrary, derogations from the normative framework that do not
meet the minimum standards, which increase a) the level of risk, b) financial exposure, and/or c) liability
to OCHA, must be approved by the OCHA EO. Any such derogation requires a written request from the
HC including a compelling justification and assessment of risk and requires written approval by the EO.
321. A non-exhaustive, illustrative list of derogations from the Global Guidelines which require written waiver
approval from the EO includes:
i. Lighter methodology to determine partners’ eligibility
ii. Cost or No-Cost Extensions that extend the project beyond the normal maximum duration
iii. Cost Extensions that increase the total project budget by more than 30 per cent of the original
budget amount
iv. Project amendment requests that are submitted after the project end date
v. Derogations from standard Operational Modalities that provide increased flexibility/less
rigorous oversight (e.g., exceeding budget ceilings, less frequent monitoring or reporting
requirements).

7. Resource mobilization and communications

322. Mobilizing commitment and resources is critical to meet the goals of the CBPFs. OCHA, through its work
on visibility and reporting, supports stakeholders to optimize their support, financial and non-financial. For
each Fund, the HC and the HFU are actively involved in mobilizing support and resources, ensuring
visibility and reporting. They are supported by OCHA headquarters, most notably the DRS, Donor Visibility
Unit (DVU) and the CBPF Section. Combined country-level and global-level resource mobilization efforts
are paramount for success.

7.1. Resource mobilization

323. Responsibility for mobilizing resources for CBPFs rests with the HC, supported by the OCHA HoO, at
country level and the OCHA Partnership and Resource Mobilization Branch (PRMB)/DRS at headquarters
level. The AB advises and supports the HC in strategic resource mobilization efforts, advocating for the
Fund as a key instrument to address critical needs and promote system improvement.
324. The OCHA Country Office assists the HC as required on all tasks related to resource mobilization for the
Fund, including the preparation of supporting documents and materials and facilitating the development
and implementation of a Resource Mobilization Action Plan. OCHA HoOs align resource mobilization
efforts for the Fund within broader initiatives to secure resources for HRPs and OCHA Country Offices.
325. OCHA Country Offices complement the resource mobilization efforts of OCHA PRMB/DRS, with support
from PFMB/CBPF Section. PRMB actively fundraises for CBPFs with respective donor capitals, including
non-traditional donors in efforts to expand the donor base. DRS will periodically share donor outreach
guidance with OCHA Country Offices.
326. The intention of donors to contribute to a Fund may be expressed to the HC or the OCHA Country Office
at the country-level or to PRMB/DRS at OCHA headquarters. It is important that information on potential
and/or planned contributions are shared in a timely manner to enable appropriate follow-up and to facilitate
the planning of allocations and best overall use of resources.

63
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

327. The PRMB supports the fundraising efforts for the CBPFs by:
i. Integrating CBPF funding requirements in its fundraising strategy vis-à-vis each donor
ii. Assisting HCs in establishing fundraising targets
iii. Reinforcing messaging with donors at the global level to help galvanize support
iv. Advising on fundraising opportunities to pursue fundraising targets
v. Providing guidance from a global perspective on best approaches to reach fundraising targets
in light of trends, forecasts and priorities within the wider humanitarian financing arena.
328. PRMB/DRS reviews and clears all donor contribution agreements for signature, which are signed by
OCHA’s EO. All pledges and contributions to CBPFs are recorded on OCHA’s internal Contributions
Tracking (OCT) platform and publicly on the Pooled Fund DataHub.
Funding targets

329. The HC is responsible for setting and reviewing the funding target for the Fund with support from the
OCHA Country Office, DRS and the AB.
330. Generally, CBPFs aim to mobilize the equivalent of 15 per cent of the funding secured for the previous
year's HRP. This stems from the Secretary-General’s Agenda for Humanity, which calls on donors to
increase the portion of funding channelled through CBPFs. The HC may establish an alternative target in
view of the funding environment and specificities of the HRP. Targets should be communicated at global
and country levels as early as possible to inform decisions about contributions – no later than January of
each year.
331. Early and predictable funding contributions are vital to support the planning of allocations and to address
humanitarian needs in a timely and effective manner. Continued and expanded use of multi-year
contribution agreements is strongly encouraged.
Resource mobilization action planning
332. On behalf of the HC, the OCHA Country Office develops a Resource Mobilization Action Plan, in
consultation with DRS and CBPF Section to provide a clear and practical framework for the HC’s resource
mobilization efforts. The Resource Mobilization Action Plan should align with broader communications
strategies and plans in-country, harmonizing wider resource mobilization efforts within a common narrative
about the country context, humanitarian needs and commensurate financial requirements.
333. The Resource Mobilization Action Plan includes a set of clear, practical actions, strengthening coordination
and accountability for resource mobilization. It contains contextual information on the humanitarian
financing environment, donor engagement mapping and fundraising targets. The Resource Mobilization
Action Plan will normally be prepared for a two-year period, with the opportunity to review and refresh key
parameters at its midpoint.

7.2. Visibility and communications

334. Donor visibility and communication raise awareness about the achievements and strategic value-add of
the CBPFs, mobilizing commitment and financial resources across donors and the Member States in
support of continuing and expanding investments.
335. A dedicated entity – the Donor Visibility Unit (DVU) in OCHA’s Donor Relations Section – leads the work
on donor visibility and communication at the global level.
336. DVU develops direct relationships with donor communications teams in capitals and facilitates dialogue
with donor representatives in-country, ensuring compliance with contractual Donor Visibility and
Recognition (DVR) obligations. DVU supports donors in promoting the value and impact of the CBPFs to
64
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

their taxpayers, parliamentarians, domestic audiences and other potential donors. DVR options include:
i. Ensure donor contributions and softly earmarked support is recognized through flagship
products and regular promotion;
ii. Develop compelling multimedia stories, tailored videos and creating other dynamic materials
that explain the value of funding the CBPFs for different communication platforms, including
social media;
iii. Develop direct relationships with donor communications teams at the capital level to collaborate
on visibility strategies;
iv. Help donors promote the value and impact of CBPF investment to their domestic constituencies
and audiences;
v. Facilitate creative and timely local testimonials such as field ambassador interviews or HC
mission coverage.
337. Donors and other stakeholders can access CBPF-related guidelines, reports, resources and information
on contributions on the OCHA CBPF website. The website is hosted by OCHA at the global level and
provides access to pages for the individual Funds.
338. All partners ae requested to promote their work and assistance funded by the SHF, as per the SHF Visibility
Guidelines and in close partnership and collaboration with OCHA Somalia HFU to maximise the impact of
their communication efforts around the SHF.
339. OCHA manages the Pooled Fund DataHub, a public, interactive, real-time data visualization platform
about donor contributions to the CBPFs and CERF, and respective allocations. The Pooled Fund DataHub
supports decision-making by humanitarian leaders, practitioners and donors. It provides information about
donor participation and allocations, including geographical coverage, achievements and the distribution of
funding across clusters/sectors and partners. It supports customised, user-friendly data analysis.
340. DVU also supports CBPFs in their donor visibility and communication work in-country by amplifying CBPF
content on Social Media platforms, advising on Fund promotion strategy and designing templates, such
as the donor visibility for communication materials.
Fund level

341. The HC, with support from the OCHA Country Office, engages with donor representatives at the country
level, illustrating the vision and positioning of the Fund within the context. Initiatives may include, but are
not limited to:
i. Maintain digital platforms and channels, such as the OCHA CBPF Website, collecting,
uploading and sharing audio-visual/multimedia content and stories
ii. Develop and share impact stories and case studies with stakeholders, including significant
achievements, references to good practices and innovations
iii. Produce tailored promotional materials
iv. Coordinate missions, events or briefing communications plans

Partner visibility and communication

342. Global and Fund-level visibility and communication materials referring to achievements by partners should
give due credit and recognition to the relevant organization(s). Consent should always be obtained from
the organization(s).
343. CBPFs encouragedto provide visibility guidance for partners to ensure promotion of projects and activities
in line with Donor Relations Section (DRS) standards and requirements. Content provided by partners is
important for OCHA to support donor visibility, in addition to highlighting the achievements of partners
themselves. Documents providing practical guidance to partners for developing and publishing visibility
65
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org
 Country-based Pooled Fund Global Guidelines

content, including OCHA branding guidance and donor visibility requirements, will be shared by the SHF.
344. Partner communication materials that include visibility for SHF should respect the dignity and integrity of
people featured. Partners are discouraged from showing people in obvious distress or in degrading
situations. Written consent must be collected from people featured in communication material where their
identity, image or attributable personal information are disclosed. Best-practice samples and guidance
should be sought from the SHF.
345. For security and other contextual reasons, partners can forgo producing and sharing visibility products to
in line with the Do No Harm principle and conflict sensitivity. OCHA and donors acknowledge and respect
low-profile mandates for partners depending on the operational context. Partners are encouraged to raise
concerns over visibility directly with HFUs at any stage of the project cycle.

7.3. Reporting and other publications

346. The SHF, with support from OCHA headquarters, produces annually:
i. The SHF Annual Report highlighting achievements, best practices, donor contributions and
allocations made during the year. The report summarizes how the SHF has performed in relation
to its strategic objectives and performance indicators.64
ii. The SHF Factsheet serving as an introduction to the Fund, providing key information, outlining its
ways of working and indicating how to contribute.
347. In addition, the SHF is encouraged to produce on a regular basis:
iii. The SHF Allocation Dashboard prepared after the completion of allocations to reflect the Strategic
Statement, funding distribution and anticipated results.

iv. The SHFQuarterly Dashboard including highlights during the quarter, such as contributions,
allocations, results and other initiatives (for example, trainings for partners).

8. Closure
Assessment of continuing viability and added value, and potential closure of a CBPF
348. When some or all the conditions for establishing a CBPF as listed in the CBPF Global Guidelines are no
longer clearly demonstrated, the continuing viability and added value should be re-assessed and potential
closure of the Fund considered. Further information on closure of a Fund can be found in the Global
Guidelines, Section 8.2.

66
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
www.unocha.org