United Nations

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Date: 25 September 2011
Sudan Common Humanitarian Fund Allocation Process Guidelines

1

2010 Common Humanitarian Fund for SudanSudan CHF - Allocation Guidelines - 2013, 1st Allocation

Annexes:

  1. Form 1 Sector Priorities
  2. Form 2 Project Proposal
  3. Form 3 Project Budget
  4. Form 4-A Priority Criteria
  5. Form 4-B Eligibility Evaluation Criteria
  6. Form 5 TRG Report
  7. Form 8 Revision Request
  8. Form 9 No Cost Extension Request
  9. Form 10 Emergency Reserve Application

Purpose:

The purposeof this document is to describe the allocation processes of the Sudan Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF), and detail the roles and responsibilities of the constituent stakeholders.

Scope:

These guidelines cover all the steps and phases to be followed through the allocation processes and are therefore for all CHF participants and stakeholdersincluding the Humanitarian Coordinator, OCHA, Sector Leads and humanitarian partners, grantees and donors. Adherence to these guidelines is strongly recommended to ensure standard and transparent processes.

Rationale:

Theobjective of the CHFis to support the timely allocation and disbursement of donor resources to the most critical humanitarian needsof Sudan, under the direction of the Humanitarian Coordinator. These guidelines support an accountable process that is inclusive, transparent and objective.This process should be based upon agreed and well defined priorities related to the most urgent humanitarian needs and critical gaps in allsectors. The guidelines also clarify all steps of the allocation process steps to enhance timely and strategic allocation decisions.

Comments on these guidelines:

A wide range of International NGOs, UN agencies and donor representativeswereconsulted during the course of the development of these guidelines, and a number of these representatives provided feedback and comments on the initial drafts of the allocation key issues.

This and other supporting documents can be found at (

Comments are welcome at: .

Key Stakeholders

The Humanitarian Coordinator: has overall responsibility of the allocation of funding under the CHF.

The CHF Advisory Group: is chaired by the Humanitarian Coordinator and is composed of 3 UN Heads of Agency Representatives, 3 NGO representatives (2 international and 1 national NGO), the CHF Donors and 2 bilateral donor representatives.

The Working Group: is made up of working level representatives of the Advisory Group and provides it with support.

The Technical Review Group: The TRG is facilitated by the Sector Lead (and Co-lead if relevant), and comprises two UN partners, and two to three NGO partners (including a national NGO). Where relevant a member from the technical line ministry also participates in the TRG. A member of OCHA HFS takes part in the TRG in an advisory role. The TRG is responsible for the technical review and prioritization for funding of projects submitted for the sector. The Sector Lead, OCHA and Government Representatives do not vote on projects.

The CHF Technical Unit: Located in the Humanitarian Financing Section (HFS) of OCHA Sudan, this is the unit that deals directly with CHF allocations.

The Fund Management Unit (FMU): The section of UNDP that deals with the CHF allocations either as Administrative Agent (for allocations to the UN) or as Managing Agent (for allocations to NGOs).

Introduction:

CHF Allocation Process

The allocation is the core of the CHF mechanism. Theobjective of the CHFis to support the timely allocation and disbursement of donor resources to the most urgent humanitarian needsof Sudan under the direction of the Humanitarian Coordinator.The CHF operates on the understanding thatthat the HC, in consultation with partners involved through a structured and participatory process, with a country level perspective and as the ‘leader’ of the humanitarian response, is well placed to make sound, strategic and prioritised decisions. The CHF Allocation Process is the HC’s mechanism for consulting with the humanitarian country team, with sector leads and implementing partners, to ensure the best possible use of available CHF funds.

The Sudan Humanitarian Work Plan (HWP) is the basis on which requests for funding are prioritized. As such, the allocation process relies heavily on the quality of the HWP, as well as the continual improvement of cross-sector needs based analysis. In addition, the allocation process requires a coordination and response system based on clear leadership, accountability, and partnership at the sector level. Ideally, the HWP, with a well defined strategy, clear needs based priorities and standardized indicators by sector will allow for a straightforward allocation process. In practice, in a fluidhumanitarian context and in the absence of up-to-date accurate humanitarian data, a consultative allocation process is necessary for effective targeting of funds.

The Sudan CHF contains two core allocation modalities the Standard Allocation Model and the Emergency Reserve both of which will be explained below.

The CHF Standard Allocation Model

The Standard Allocation model is an allocation process through which the majority of CHF funding is allocated to activities within the HWP. The purpose of the standard allocation model is to provide timely and predictable funding to thehighest priority elements of the HWP.

Most of the funds allocated through this modality will be allocated early in the year[1] to front load critical humanitarian programmes in the country. The Standard Allocation Model involves close consultation with sector groups and other relevant partners at central and regional level.

CHF Emergency Reserve

An emergency reserve is kept within the CHF to enable the Humanitarian Coordinator to provide a rapid respond to unforeseen emergency needs(e.g. natural disasters, displacements, disease outbreaks) arising outside the CHF Standard Allocation process. The emergency reserve will typically be a minimum of 10%of thefunds committedto the CHF.

Standard Allocation Process Management:

The standard allocation process includes two levels of review once a prioritization of urgent humanitarian needs has been issued in the form of a policy paper by the Humanitarian Coordinator. The policy paper, endorsed by the CHF Advisory Group reflects priorities that have been refined to those most urgent humanitarian needs as set out in the HWP humanitarian response plan. These needs would typically represent the high-high HWP priorities per sector, recognising that approximately 10-15% of needs are resourced through the CHF depending on the sector. Priorities are recommended through sector leads based upon open and transparent consultation and submitted to the HC for approval.

Once the policy paper has been approved by the HC and endorsed by the CHF Advisory Group, the Sector Leads share the policy paper with sector partners and call for project submissions that address the priorities as set out in the policy paper. Sector Leads, together with a Sector Technical Review Group (TRG), then undertake a review and ranking of projects for technical merit in addressing the most urgent humanitarian needs. On that basis, the sector then submits their recommendations for funding, including amounts to be funded, to the second level of review, the CHF Advisory Review Group (ARG). Recommendations are supported with clear and concise documentation on the ranking and decision making process to demonstrate that a transparent, inclusive and objective process has been followed.

The ARG then reviews all sector documentation,the recommended projects andthe basis upon which ranking and funding amounts have been determined. The ARG does not undertake a technical review of the projects but rather seeks to confirm an accountable decision making process underpins the recommended projects for funding. The ARG also considers the strategic aspects of the process, including whether gaps have been addressed and if recommendations clearly address urgent humanitarian needs in the sector as defined in the policy paper.

Subsequently, the Sector Lead and a member of the TRG (NGO) will provide a sector defense of the recommendations submitted for fundingthis a defence of overall sector prioritization, objectives, activities and indicators.

The final decision lies with the Humanitarian Coordinator and is informed by the recommendations of the Technical Review Group (TRG) on the advice of the CHF Advisory Review Groups (ARG) to approve recommendations. This further assures the HC that appropriate due diligence has been applied in the consideration of recommendations for his approval

Once the Humanitarian Coordinator has approved an allocation, it is signed and a letter is sent to the requesting organization to indicate acceptance. At that point the UNDP Financial Management Unit (FMU) inclusive of the Administrative Agent for UN agencies and the Managing Agent for NGOs proceeds with disbursements. Procedures for disbursement are included in Step 5.

Key Steps of the Standard Allocation Model

This section outlines the minimum elements/steps within a CHF Standard Allocation Model. Details on allocation model are provided in the annex of this document.

STEP 1- Prioritization

A CHF is designed for the Humanitarian Coordinator to identify priority humanitarian interventions for funding within Sudan Humanitarian Work Plan (HWP) with support from the technical experts on the ground. With respect to the latter, humanitarian partners are requested to identify priorities at the sectoral level to be considered for CHF funding and submit these to the HC for consideration.

Sectoral Priorities

Following completion of the HWP prioritization process, agreement shall be sought within the humanitarian community which priority elements of the humanitarian response to target with available CHF funding. The CHF priorities defined in each sector should be led by the Sector Lead during the peer review process when work plan projects are being prioritized to improve timeliness and efficiency. The CHF priorities are drafted for consultation and agreement among sector partners across Sudan at state and central levels. The agreed sector definitions of urgent humanitarian needs and critical gaps must includea clear articulation of beneficiaries, and geographic priorities, underserved areas or high risk locations. The sectoral priorities are then submitted to OCHA HFS for consideration and inclusion in the CHF policy paper.

CHF STEP 1 – PRIORITIZATION (This step will be harmonized and initiated with the Sudan HWP parallel step ) / RESPONSIBLE / OUTPUT
1.1 / In parallel with sector level peer review prioritization of HWP projects, the Sector Leads and the Peer Review Group will define the most urgent humanitarian needs and critical gaps with clear articulation priorities, objectives, activities, indicators, high priority beneficiary groups, geographic and/or high risk locations and underserved areas. / Sector Lead
Peer Review Group / Draft of CHF sector priorities
1.2 / Once CHF priorities are drafted, Sector Leads share via email to propose to sector partners. On receipt of comments, the Sector Lead along with the Peer Review Group, will revise and refine the CHF sector priority definitions. / Sector lead
Peer Review Group
With Sector Partners / Final version of recommended CHF sector priorities
1.3 / Sector Leads send completed sector prioritization to OCHA HFS for consolidation and inclusion in the CHF Allocation Policy Paper. / Sector Lead / Email to OCHA HFS

STEP 2- CHF Allocation Policy Guidance

The CHF standard allocation process shall be guided by an allocation policy in the form of a Policy Paper developed by the OCHAHFS on behalf of theHumanitarian Coordinator with support from the CHF Advisory Group (as represented by the CHF Advisory Working Group). The paper outlines the allocation strategy, priorities and guidance for the allocation of the Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) for Sudan. The policy paper shall serve as reference for all stakeholders throughout the allocation process and it shall build on priorities and strategies set out in the (HWP). This will be based on analysis of the most urgent humanitarian needs in consultation with sectors.The policy paper will not inform sector envelopes. The sectors should make their project ranking and selection based on strategic prioritization process.Funding envelopes per sector, which will be decided after projects funding recommendations, are informed by HWP financial analysis as well as analysis of funding history and gaps (i.e. underserved) in combination with strategic sectoral priorities

Components of the Allocation Policy Paper

The allocation policy paper shall as a minimum outline:

  • Total amount to be allocated through the CHF
  • Timeline for the allocation process.
  • Roles and responsibilities in the allocation process.
  • Overarching allocation strategy and priorities (based on Sudan Humanitarian Work Plan (HWP)strategy and priorities)
  • Allocation model.

The policy paper shall therefore also provide:

  • Specific guidance on priorities and (types of) activities eligible for funding within clusters/sectors and/or regions
  • Specific information on allocation of funds to specific projects/programmes/activities outside the cluster/sector based allocation process (i.e. Special Allocations including core pipelines, common services or thematic allocations)

OCHA HFS will assist the Humanitarian Coordinator in developing the policy paper and will facilitate the necessary analysis and consultations. OCHA HFS, will circulate a draft of the policy paper to members of the CHF Advisory Group (represented by the CHF Working Group) for any comments or recommended revisions. The paper is then submitted for the HC’s initial approval before circulation to the CHF Advisory Group. The paper must be sent at least one week in advance of the CHF Advisory Group meeting.

At the CHF Advisory Group (AG) meeting, the policy paper is discussed and endorsed with some comments by members. Once endorsed, OCHA HFS circulates the policy paper to the Sector Leads who then forward it on to sector partners across Sudan. This constitutes a call for project submissions. At the same time, Sector Leads provide relevant guidance and the most current forms with an explanation and calendar of next steps and milestone dates.

CHF STEP 2 – POLICY PAPER / RESPONSIBLE / OUTPUT
2.1 / OCHA HFS prepares a draft Policy Paper based on input received from Sector Leads, Donors and UNDP and distributes to CHF Advisory Group members / OCHA HFS / Draft Policy Paper
2.2 / CHF Advisory Group (represented by the Working Group) members comment back, with recommendations and revisions to OCHA on the Policy Paper / CHF AG Members / Emailed comments to OCHA HFS
2.3 / The Policy Paper is shared with the HC for his advice and subsequent approval, whereby the HC calls for a meeting of the CHF Advisory Group. / HC / HC approves Policy Paper and calls for CHF meeting
2.4 / The CHF Policy paper is circulated with an agenda one week in advance of the CHF Advisory Group meeting (or AGM) / HC/ OCHA HFS / Final Policy Paper
2.5 / The CHF Advisory Group meeting is convened and chaired by the HC, with the endorsement (and any recommended changes) of the Policy Paper. / HC / CHF Policy Paper is endorsed
2.6 / OCHA circulates the Policy Paper to Sector Leads to provide clarity on special and standard allocation priorities. Also provided are the CHF Allocation Timelines, Guidelines and requisite forms.
The Sector Lead then disseminates all of these to sector participants to call for projects. / OCHA and Sector Leads / Dissemination of Final Policy Paper and supporting documentation

STEP 3- Project Submissions, Sector Technical Reviews and Funding Recommendations

Once cluster/sector partners have received the final Policy Paper they identify those projects that address the CHF priority needs as defined for their sector and prepare appropriate project submissions per standard CHF proposal formats and submit them for review to the Sector Lead (copying OCHA HFS who conduct the eligibility reviews).
Only projects approved and included in the HWP will be considered for a standard CHF allocation. The Sector Lead (and Co-Lead if relevant) will then undertake a quality control review, seeking additional information or advising on necessary revisions or improvements to potential sector grantees before convening a review meeting of the sector Technical Review Group (TRG). This quality control is critical to the timeliness element of fund allocation. Poor quality proposals will typically experience long delays in disbursements.

The TRG is facilitated by the Sector Lead (and Co-lead if relevant), and comprises two UN partners, and two to three NGO partners (including a national NGO). Where relevant a member from the technical line ministry also participates in the TRG. A member of OCHA HFS takes part in the TRG in an advisory role. OCHA,the Sector Lead, and Government Representatives do not vote on projects, however they may weigh in on the discussion on projects merits.
The TRG will have prepared a project ranking sheet based upon the CHF standard format to assist in the selection process of projects to be recommended for funding. During the meeting, the TRG will use this tool to qualitatively and quantifiably rank the projects while discussing the technical and strategic elements of each project.
Points of discussion and decision making merit are captured in the Allocation Report (minutes) to demonstrate an inclusive, transparent and objective basis for recommended projects. Upon completion of the sector technical review, the sector lead advises partners recommended for CHF funding to prepare submissions in the CHF matrix format and log frame. The Sector Lead finalizes the sector submissions ensuring all documentation, including rankings, minutes, matrices and log frames are complete and send to OCHA HFS to conduct the second level of review at the CHF advisory level.