PRIORITY PLAN TEMPLATE3.1

United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office/Peacebuilding Fund

(PBSO/PBF)

Peacebuilding Priority Plan

(Length - Max. 20 pages)

Summary:

Country:
Amount of any existing PBF commitments in the country (other PRF or IRF):
Total value of this Priority Plan:
Amount of any existing non-PBF funding commitments, if any, to the Priority Plan[1]:
Total amount of funding requested from PBF for the Priority Plan:
Start date and duration of Priority Plan Implementation[2]:
Priority Plan Outcomes:
Co-chairs of the Joint Steering Committee[3]
Name of Senior UN Representative
Signature
Title
Date & Seal
(Usually SRSG for mission settings and RC for non-mission settings). / Name of Government Representative
Signature
Title
Date & Seal
Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO)
Name of Representative
Signature
Peacebuilding Support Office, NY
Date& Seal

N. B. The text in italics is guidance only and should be deleted before submitting the Priority Plan.

  1. PEACEBUILDING CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR PBF SUPPORT

(a)Peacebuilding context:This section summarizes the key findings of the conflict analysis, including the major conflict issues and triggers and capacities for peace, as well as the critical current needs. It includes an analysis of how women and men have been both impacted by the conflict and involved in it. It also highlights why the moment is right for PBF to provide support now – i.e. have there been any recent developments or are there any upcoming crossroads for peace which warrant urgent support? Explicit reference should be made to any conflict analysis exercises that underpin this analysis.

(b)Strategic peacebuilding plans:This section presents any existing national and UN peacebuilding plans/ frameworks for peace, including their vision and areas of focus. It should also include key elements of any existing active peace agreements. It should also situate the proposed Priority Plan vis-à-vis existing agreements and plans.

(c)Partner Government commitments for the success of the Priority Plan: This section outlines the key commitments by the partner government, which are essential to making this Priority Plan a success.

(a)Mapping of relevant peacebuilding interventions:This section assesses the existing peacebuilding interventions by different actors (government, International Organizations, including the UN system, NGOs, civil society organizations, bilateral donors, etc.) and financial and programmatic ‘gaps’. Please use the table below for the mapping and make a link to the conflict analysis presented in section (a).

Table 1 – Mapping of peacebuilding activities and gaps

Priority Plan Outcome / Source of funding (Government/ development partner) / Key Projects/Activities / Duration of projects/activities / Budget in $ / Description of major gaps in the Outcome Area, programmatic or financial
Ex. : Security Sector Reform and Rule of Law / 1) The Gov of Brazil
2) UNIOGBIS + UNDP / 1)Brazil: Support to police and military academies
2)UNIOGBIS: Technical assistance to police reform and reform of the armed forces; / 1) 2 years : from March 2009 to February 2011
2) 1 year: from September 2010 to August 2011 / 1) 2 Million
2) 4 Million / US$1 million ($450,000 minimum estimated per court and $100,000 for equipment) to complement 2 courts already rehabilitated with EU support)
  1. OBJECTIVES OF PBF SUPPORT AND PROPOSED PRIORITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

(a)Vision of the Priority Plan: This section identifies overall vision of the Priority Plan. It briefly summarizes the combined impact of Priority Plan Outcomes and explains their overall coherence, including how they fit together, how they are sequenced and how they add value to or reinforce each other. The vision and the priorities need to be clearly linked to the conflict analysis in the previous section. In selecting Outcome Areas, reference should be made to the PBF Performance Management Plan (PMP) and to its proposed outcomes and indicators to ensure that outcomes are pitched at the appropriate peacebuilding level.Gender equality and women’s empowerment should be considered when defining the objectives of the Priority Plan, in line with the UN commitments to gender-responsive peacebuilding.

(b)Priority Plan Outcomes:For each of the Priority Plan outcomes identified above, this section provides an overview, including the following: (i) a clear Outcome Statement;(ii) a ‘Theory of Change’ explaining the underpinning logic and causal link chainfor the change this outcome is seeking; (iii) expected content of the support, including the scope and scale of support, target groups, geographical scope, focus of support, envisaged modalities of support/ implementation approach, with a justification for the proposed approach. In preparing this section, teams should refer back to Section 3.3 of the PBF Guidelines on considerations regarding gender equality. Teams should also consider any Do No Harm issues in selecting specific target groups and geographic areas.

(c)Catalytic effect and sustainability:This section outlines the expected catalytic effects of the proposed interventions and notes how the effects will be sustained in the longer term. In particular, how is the Priority Plan creating conditions which will enable longer-term peacebuilding changes? Also how can the Priority Plan help to mobilize additional sources of peacebuilding funds? See Guidance Note 5.2: How to programme for catalytic effects.

(d)UN capacity:This section should provide a brief overview of the UN Team in the Country, including the overall annual budget (development and emergency) and the staff. It should include the peacebuilding expertise of the UN, if any, and an outline of the UN strengths/ value-added, which will be put to use in the Priority Plan implementation. Please use the following table for the budget.

Table 2: Overview of UN funding in the country
Un Country Team / Key Source of Funding (government, donor etc) / Annual Regular Budget in $ / Annual emergency budget (e.g. CAP)
Previous calendar year
Current calendar year

(e)Budget:This section sets out the budget of the Priority Plan by Outcome. The size of the budget should be justified on the basis of the previous sections. This section should provide any additional narrative that helps to explain the proposed size of the budget, including how value-for-money will be ensured. The budget should include a line for the operational costs of the Secretariat and, if needed, the Joint Steering Committee.It should also include a line for M&E. A part of the M&E funds (for the independent evaluation) will be retained by PBSO/PBF.

Priority Plan Outcome / Budget in USD / Any comments
  1. PRIORITY PLAN MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

(d)Management and coordination arrangements:This section identifies the key actors who will take part in the implementation of the Priority Plan, including the Joint Steering Committee, the technical committee, the PBF Secretariat, the UNCT, RUNOs, the national and/or local government structures. It should clearly explain their roles and responsibilities and also illustrate how different interventions will be coordinated and coherence of the Priority Plan as a programme ensured.

(e)Risk analysis:This section sets out the main risks identified in the Priority Plan that may jeopardize its implementation, their likelihood, severity, and risk management, including responsibility for risk management/ mitigation. Risks should include those of a political and external nature as well as those of programmatic nature. Use the table below for risk mapping.

Table 3 – Risk management matrix

Risks to the achievement of PBF outcomes / Likelihood of occurrence (high, medium, low) / Severity of risk impact (high, medium, low) / Mitigating Strategy (and Person/Unit responsible)

(f)Results framework:This section sets out a Results Framework for the Priority Plan. Please use the table on the next page to set out the Results Framework and adjust the number of outcomes and indicators as necessary. The Priority Plan’s results framework consists of two phases: phase one to accompany the submission of the Priority Plan for approval by PBSO (shaded in light blue), and phase two to be submitted to PBSO within 30 days of the Joint Steering Committee’s approval of projects against the Priority Plan (shaded in yellow).For additional information on Results Frameworks, please refer to Section 7 of the PBF Guidelines.

To accompany the Results Framework, brief information should be provided on the M&E arrangements for the Plan, including the persons who will be responsible for the collection and analysis of data, the kind of means of verification envisaged and the budget being set aside for M&E. This will be further strengthened and elaborated on in an M&E Plan, to be provided with the second phase of the Priority Plan Results Framework.

1

Table 4 – Priority Plan Results’ Framework

Country Name:
Priory Plan Effective Dates:
Priority Plan Vision Statement:
PPP Strategic Outcome One / Indicators / Means of Verification / Budget for the ourtcome
Priority Plan Outcome 1 / PP Indicator 1
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 2
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 3
Baseline:
Target:
Project Outcomes / Indicators / Means of Verification / Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 3 / Project Milestones and Dates
Project Outcome 1.1:
[insert project outcome statement language (Project Name - RUNO)] / Project Indicator 1.1.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.1.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.1.3
Baseline:
Target:
Project Outcome 1.2:
[insert project outcome statement language (Project Name - RUNO)] / Project Indicator 1.2.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.2.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.2.3
Baseline:
Target:
Project Outcome 1.3:
[insert project outcome statement language (Project Name - RUNO)] / Project Indicator 1.3.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.3.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.3.3
Baseline:
Target:
PPP Strategic Outcome Two / Indicators / Means of Verification
Priority Plan Outcome 2 / PP Indicator 4
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 5
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 6
Baseline:
Target:
Project Outcomes / Indicators / Means of Verification / Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 3 / Project Milestones and Dates
Project Outcome 2.1:
[insert project outcome statement language (Project Name - RUNO)] / Project Indicator 2.1.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.1.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.1.3
Baseline:
Target:
Project Outcome 2.2:
[insert project outcome statement language (Project Name - RUNO)] / Project Indicator 2.2.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.2.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.2.3
Baseline:
Target:
Project Outcome 2.3:
[insert project outcome statement language (Project Name - RUNO)] / Project Indicator 2.3.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.3.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.3.3
Baseline:
Target:
PPP Strategic Outcome Three / Indicators / Means of Verification
Priority Plan Outcome 3 / PP Indicator 7
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 8
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 9
Baseline:
Target:
Project Outcomes / Indicators / Means of Verification / Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 3 / Project Milestones and Dates
Project Outcome 3.1:
[insert project outcome statement language (Project Name - RUNO)] / Project Indicator 3.1.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.1.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.1.3
Baseline:
Target:
Project Outcome 3.2:
[insert project outcome statement language (Project Name - RUNO)] / Project Indicator 3.2.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.2.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.2.3
Baseline:
Target:
Project Outcome 3.3:
[insert project outcome statement language (Project Name - RUNO)] / Project Indicator 3.3.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.3.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.3.3
Baseline:
Target:
PPP Strategic Outcome Four (standard) / Indicators / Means of Verification
Effective coordination, monitoring, reporting, evaluation and communication on the achievement of the Priority Plan results and the projects that support it. / PP Indicator 10
JSC Annual Report submitted within 7 days of the deadline
Baseline:
Target: / Transmittal e-mail of JSC Annual Report
PP Indicator 11
Quality of JSC Annual Reports rated “acceptable” by PBSO review team
Baseline:
Target: / Report review matrix (PBF)
PP Indicator 12
PPP projects fully meet selection criteria, including value-for-money criteria
Baseline:
Target: / Project selection criteria checklist; minutes of JSC meetings
PP Indicator 13
Key partners (e.g. RUNOs as well as non-UN stakeholders) satisfied with level and timeliness of PBO communication and coordination
Baseline:
Target: / bi-annual partnership survey

1

[1]Specifically note any funding from the UNDP Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery Thematic Trust Fund

[2]The Peacebuilding Priority Plan may not exceed 3 years.

[3]If the PBF Joint Steering Committee is not yet established, the most Senior UN representative and a senior Government representative (usually at Ministerial level) can sign the Priority Plan.