United Nations

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Ref. 2012/7

Guidelines

Emergency Response Funds

Approved by: Ms. Valerie Amos, Emergency Relief Coordinator and

Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs
Approval date: 09 October 2012
Contact: Chief, Funding Coordination Section (FCS)
Review date: 01 July 2013

This and other official OCHA Guidance is available on

the Policy Guidance Page of OCHANet
 Guidelines
Emergency Response Funds

Contents:

A.  PURPOSE ..................................................................................................... 3 

B.  SCOPE .......................................................................................................... 4 
C.  RATIONALE .................................................................................................. 4 
D.  GUIDELINES ................................................................................................. 4

1.  General Objectives of ERFs.......................................................................... 4 

2.  Eligibility for ERF........................................................................................... 6 
3.  Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................... 6 
3.1. Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) .............................................................. 6
3.2. OCHA Head of Office (HoO)................................................................... 7
3.3. ERF Manager/ERF Unit .......................................................................... 8
3.4. Advisory Board (AB) ............................................................................... 8
3.5. Review Board (RB) ................................................................................. 9
3.6. OCHA Headquarters (HQ) .................................................................... 11
3.7. Recipient Organizations........................................................................ 14
4.  Workflow ...................................................................................................... 15 
5.  Finance and Administration ....................................................................... 16 
5.1. Clearance of Agreements ..................................................................... 16
5.2. Eligible Expenditures ............................................................................ 16
5.3. Ineligible Expenditures.......................................................................... 18
5.4. Modifications of Project Activities ......................................................... 18
5.5. Audits and Fees .................................................................................... 19
5.6. Managing the Audit Process ................................................................. 20
5.7. Transfers of Equipment and Property ................................................... 21
6.  Mainstreaming Gender ................................................................................ 21 
7.  Accountability .............................................................................................. 22 
7.1. M&R Plan ............................................................................................. 22
7.2. Evaluations and Reviews...................................................................... 24

E.  REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 25 

F.  MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE ............................................................ 25 
G.  DATES ........................................................................................................ 25 
H.  CONTACT ................................................................................................... 26 
I.  HISTORY ..................................................................................................... 26 

Page 2 of 27
 ANNEXES

I. List of Acronyms
II. Guidance Note on Opening of Emergency Response Funds
III. Guidance Note on Closure of Emergency Response Funds
IV. Partner Capacity Assessment Form
V. ToR Pooled Fund Manager
VI. MoU with UN Agencies
VII. Agreement with NGOs
VIII. Project Appraisal Template
IX. Step-by-Step Guide for the Project Application and Approval Process
X. Memo for HC Endorsement
XI. Memo for the First and the Last Disbursement Request
XII. ToR for Advisory Board Template
XIII. ToR for Review Board Template
XIV. FTS reporting template
XV. ERF Workflow
XVI. Checklists for Project Submissions to ASB Geneva
XVII. Project Proposal (narrative) Template
XVIII. ERF Budget Tool
XIX. Third Party Request Form
XX. Bank Information Form
XXI. Amendments
A. Letter of Acceptance of Amendments within Budget Categories
B. ERF Budget Tool for Amendments
XXII. No-Cost Extension
A. Letter of Acceptance of No-Cost Extension for NGOs
B. Letter of Acceptance of No-Cost Extension for UN Agencies
XXIII. Standard Terms of Reference for ERF Audit
XXIV. Audit Template
XXV. IASC Gender Marker FAQ
XXVI. Project Monitoring Report Template
XXVII. Reporting Template
A. Interim Narrative Reporting Template
B. Final Narrative Reporting Template
XXVIII. ERF Annual Report:
A. ERF Annual Report Template
B. ERF Annual Report Guidelines

Page 3 of 27
A. PURPOSE

The purpose of these guidelines is to provide OCHA Country Offices (COs) with
the appropriate tools to support Humanitarian Coordinators (HCs) in managing
an Emergency Response Fund (ERF). The guidelines also strive to ensure
coherence in the management of all ERFs.

B. SCOPE

The primary audiences for these guidelines are Humanitarian Coordinators

(HCs), OCHA Heads of Office (HoOs) and OCHA fund-management staff. The
secondary audience is OCHA Headquarters (HQ) staff. The specific country
context must always be kept in mind when creating, managing and closing an
ERF, but all Funds should comply with and operate within these guidelines.

C. RATIONALE

Since 1997, OCHA has managed ERFs in a number of countries. These Funds
were established with little guidance from HQ, and frequently required HCs and
OCHA COs to recreate existing systems without adequate support.1 In 2009,
OCHA’s Funding Coordination Section (FCS) was established in New York to
address this gap and oversee country-based pooled funds. Subsequently, with
the creation of FCS, there was a rapid growth with eight new ERFs. However,
independent reviews have shown that these country-based pooled funds have
proven to be valuable tools in ensuring timely, appropriate and flexible funding for
urgent and life-saving activities addressing unforeseen or new humanitarian
needs. They have also reinforced the strategic value of a Humanitarian Country
Team (HCT) through prioritization of needs.2

This guidance aims to standardize the process and tools of managing ERFs,
ensuring that all Funds build on the lessons learned, evaluations and good
practice accumulated during OCHA’s years of managing similar mechanisms.

D. GUIDELINES

1. General Objectives of ERFs

“Emergency Response Fund” is an umbrella term that covers a range of country-

based pooled funds sharing general characteristics. The following features are
typical of an ERF:

1
There is no dedicated General Assembly resolution with a governing mandate for ERFs, unlike for the Central
Emergency Response Fund (CERF).
2
Guidance on opening and closing ERFs are included in annexes II and III of these guidelines.

Page 4 of 27
  Operates under the HC’s overall management and oversight.
 Provides recipient organizations with a rapid and flexible in-country
funding mechanism.
 Provides funding to unforeseen or new developments.
 May provide funding to life-saving activities with critical gaps in the
Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) and bridge funding to meet short-
term emergency needs.
 Is relatively small in size.

ERFs operate under different names in different countries, including

Humanitarian Response Funds (HRFs). However, since the FCS was created, all
new funds follow the standard name: Emergency Response Fund.

An ERF is a tool at the HC’s disposal. It enables rapid and flexible funding to
urgent humanitarian needs, and it facilitates coordination of emergency response
activities. ERFs provide additional funding to fill critical gaps, enabling
humanitarian partners to meet the short-term emergency needs of vulnerable
communities without delay. ERFs are not intended to support activities that are
outside the scope of the humanitarian response or could be better addressed
through development channels. Nor are these funds intended as the primary
funding source for core programmed humanitarian action in a country.

Where a Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP) or similar planning or

prioritization framework exists, ERFs work within the established objectives of the
framework. ERFs work according to the priorities defined by the HC and the
HCT. ERFs could also focus on new or unforeseen needs and emergency
projects that were not part of the annual planning process.

ERFs facilitate the coordination of response activities through consultation with

humanitarian partners at different levels in-country to avoid duplication of efforts.
These funding mechanisms also serve to strengthen partnerships between
United Nations (UN) and non-UN actors through equitable access to funds,
representation on an Advisory Board (AB) and Review Board (RB), as well as
transparent decision-making mechanisms.3

ERFs complement existing funding channels such as CERF. To improve

consistency, coherence and complementarity, the CERF secretariat and FCS are
harmonizing the processes and mechanisms for grant management and
allocations for CERF and ERFs. In countries where an ERF is in place, HCs are
encouraged to use the existing ERF structure and consultation framework as a
basis for identifying and prioritizing projects for CERF funding. This will enhance
the coordination and complementarity between ERF and CERF allocations. This
will also help ensure that CERF processes build on well-established structures
3
For additional information, the Principles of Partnership can be downloaded from
http://ochanet.unocha.org/PG/Policy%20Guidance/Principles%20of%20Partnership.pdf

Page 5 of 27
and systems, and that NGO partners actively participate in CERF discussions
and decisions.

2. Eligibility for ERF

ERF funds are intended predominantly for facilitating NGO (international, national
and local) response in an emergency. However, allocations may also support
humanitarian action by UN agencies, IOM and the Red Cross/Red Crescent
Movement. The preference for NGOs takes into account the fact that only UN
agencies and IOM can be direct recipients of CERF funding. The ERF inclination
to NGOs is also in line with Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) principles to
build partnership.

To be eligible for ERF funding, applicants must complete a capacity-assessment4

form, which highlights the following:
 Proven ability to implement proposed activities.
 Appropriate accreditation and registration with the Government.
 Comparative advantage over other potential implementers, such as
access, networks, capacities and resources.

In addition to the aforementioned programmatic requirements, applicants must

also demonstrate:
 A verifiable office address.
 A valid US$ bank account in the organization’s name that can be used to
receive funds through wire transfers from the UN and other donors, and to
make remittances when required.
 An ability to keep financial records in accordance with international
accounting standards, with the accounts being audited at least once a year
and published in an annual report.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

The following passages define the key ERF duties of the HC; the OCHA HoO
and the ERF Unit; AB; RB; different key sections in OCHA HQ; and recipient
organizations.

3.1. Humanitarian Coordinator (HC)

The UN Under-Secretary-General (USG) for Humanitarian Affairs, on behalf of

the office, and as the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) of the humanitarian

4
A capacity assessment form is included in annex IV of these guidelines.

Page 6 of 27
community, holds the ultimate decision-making power at HQ to open a Fund,5
and to ensure that OCHA has the necessary capacity to manage the Fund. The
HC reports to the ERC, as stated in the respective HC Compacts, with the overall
responsibility for oversight and management of the Fund, and endorses the
establishment at country level.

The HC is responsible for funding decisions, and for ensuring adequate strategic
and programmatic oversight and the appropriateness of funded activities.
Although HCs are normally advised by the ERF RB on project selection, they
may opt to make funding decisions outside of this body when the need arises
(e.g. in time-critical situations or for common services). The HC gives final
approval on proposed projects, and signs grant agreements with NGOs and a
memorandum of understanding (MoU) with UN agencies.

HCs are accountable for ensuring activity/programme reporting and monitoring,

and for reporting on the use of contributions to stakeholders, including donors.
HCs also lead the efforts to raise funds for the ERF.

The HC is supported by the OCHA CO on daily strategic and operational issues.

HCs may choose to delegate some of their responsibilities (except financial
responsibilities) to the OCHA HoO as necessary. Such delegation must be done
in writing from the HC to the OCHA HoO.

The HC should also emphasise and ensure leadership at the country level on
enhancing accountability of ERF projects to women, girls, boys and men,
particularly by using the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) gender tools
and the Gender Marker (GM).

3.2. OCHA Head of Office (HoO)

The OCHA HoO oversees the daily management of the core functions of the
OCHA CO, which includes the ERF. The OCHA HoO:
 Acts as the primary focal point within the OCHA CO for the HC on ERF
issues.
 Advises the HC and interfaces with HQ on strategic and policy issues
related to the ERF.
 Obtains expert inputs from the ERF Manager and other parts of the OCHA
CO, such as field or sub-offices where the humanitarian situation and
needs are best known.
 Ensures the submission of timely expenditure reports by ERF-recipient
organizations at the country level.
 Supports the HC in fundraising and keeps donors abreast of
developments with the Fund.

5
Criteria and process are described in annex II.

Page 7 of 27
3.3. ERF Manager/ERF Unit

Under the OCHA HoO’s direct supervision, the ERF Manager is responsible for
the daily management of the Fund. The ERF Manager will ensure the overall
administration of the Fund, manage and supervise staff who are part of the ERF
Unit, and liaise with relevant OCHA CO and HQ sections on matters concerning
the Fund as necessary. The ERF Manager will be primarily responsible for
facilitating and managing the entire project cycle: proposal review, allocation
process, including No-Cost Extension (NCE) and audit process, as well as
meeting monitoring, reporting and evaluation requirements according to these
guidelines and the Fund Manager Terms of Reference (ToR).6

The ERF Manager serves as the secretariat for the RB and AB, and is the
primary interface between these boards and the applicants. The ERF Manager
will be responsible for consolidating recommendations, technical comments and
review results, and informing respective parties accordingly. ERF managers also
monitor closely the review and approval process of proposals submitted to the
ERF. They also ensure timely follow-up by respective parties to maintain the
agreed timetable for processing incoming proposals. In the case of a critical or
urgent need, this agreed time frame can be shortened at the HC’s discretion.

For projects that the HC has approved, the ERF Manager/ERF Unit prepares an
official agreement (MoU or grant agreement)7 in cooperation with the applicant,
and requests a transfer of funds from the OCHA Administrative Services Branch-
(ASB), in OCHA Geneva, to an accredited international bank. The Fund Manager
follows up and monitors the clearance and the disbursement with OCHA ASB.
He or she also continuously monitors the projects through reports produced by
the recipient organizations and monitoring missions.8

In cooperation with recipient organizations, the Fund Manager prepares and

submits final narrative and financial reports to ASB on the use of the funds at the
end of the implementation period. The Fund Manager also regularly shares
information on funding decisions as necessary to stakeholders. When the ERF
has funded a new project not originally included in the CAP, the project and its
ERF funding amount are added to the CAP retroactively.9

3.4. Advisory Board (AB)

An AB shall be formed to advise the HC on strategic and policy issues related to

the ERF. It will:
6
The Fund Manager ToR is included in annex V of these guidelines.
7
The MoU for UN agencies and the NGO grant agreement are included in annexes VI and VII of these guidelines.
8
Tools and templates for the Fund Manager are included in annexes VIII-XI of these guidelines.
9
This retroactive exercise does not apply to those projects already in the CAP that are funded by the ERF.

Page 8 of 27
  Be chaired by the HC.
 Have OCHA as the secretariat, with all meetings recorded in writing.
 Be composed of representatives of UN humanitarian agencies, IOM,
NGOs and the Red Cross/Crescent Movement.

The AB can serve as a forum for donor coordination, and the HC may consider
inviting key humanitarian donors that do not contribute to the ERF to participate
as observers. Depending on the situation, Government representation may be
appropriate. In certain circumstances, as outlined in the AB ToR,10 nominations
of members can be discussed at the HCT and presented to the HC. AB members
should be at the head-of-agency level.

The AB’s main functions are to:

 Discuss progress of ERF projects.
 Review policy issues.
 Keep track of the funding levels, and assess the funding targets and time
frame for replenishing the Fund.
 Evaluate the effectiveness, relevance and added value of the Fund in
meeting its objectives and in relation to the overall humanitarian response.
 Ensure progress on GM implementation and full compliance.

End-of-project reports, evaluation reports and audit findings should be

periodically summarized and presented to the AB by the HC, supported by the
OCHA HoO.

The AB should meet at least every six months. As part of its oversight function,
the AB should periodically review the level of participation and representation of
the different partners and sectors.

3.5. Review Board (RB)

The RB will:
 Be chaired by the HC, who may delegate this responsibility to the OCHA
HoO.
 Be composed of representatives of UN humanitarian agencies, IOM and
NGOs.
 Include a Gender Adviser as a member, if one is available.
 Have the ERF Manager perform a secretariat role, with all key RB
meetings recorded in writing.

10
ToR for the Advisory Board is included in annex XII of these guidelines.

Page 9 of 27
  Outline the membership period of RB representatives in the RB ToR.11
The HCT or AB may nominate RB representatives. NGO consortiums or
forums are also welcome to present their nominations of RB
representatives. The HC ultimately approves the RB members.

The RB assists the HC in the review of ERF proposals against set priorities in the
Fund’s ToR and the overall humanitarian response framework. Proposals should
be developed in consultation with relevant clusters before the applicant sends
them to the ERF Manager. ERF project proposals are submitted by the ERF
Manager to the RB once a general screening has been completed to ensure they
meet minimum requirements. The RB is responsible for reviewing, vetting and
recommending projects to the HC for his or her final decision. More specifically,
the RB should:
 Agree on a set of technical criteria, consulted with respective clusters, to
assess project proposals. These criteria should include the GM.
 Agree on a quorum to determine when a project can be considered for
approval in case an RB member is unable to attend a meeting or provide
their input within the required time frame.
 To ensure impartiality, excuse members if a project submitted by their
agency is being discussed, and abstain from providing inputs unless
explicitly requested to do so by the HC or the RB Chair.
 Conduct proposal reviews in person, although virtual reviews may be
allowed.

The review process

1. RB members complete their assessment

RB members will provide their assessment of proposals within a few days of
submission by the ERF Manager, indicating whether the proposals are approved,
approved subject to modifications or rejected. The Fund Manager collects and
collates inputs from RB members into a recommendation to the HC. This
recommendation should take into account the recipient organizations’
performance with previous grants from the Fund, timeliness of implementation,
any audit report findings and the GM code. RB members need to take these
points into account. Therefore, the ERF Manager should make these points—and
any other relevant information—available to RB members in an easily accessible
manner.

2. RB members may consult with relevant clusters/sectoral groups

Project proposals should be developed in consultation with clusters before they
are submitted to the ERF. However, when necessary and if time allows, RB
11
ToR for the Review Board is included in annex XIII of these guidelines.

Page 10 of 27
members are encouraged to quickly corroborate any technical or operational
content of the proposal with relevant clusters/sectoral groups, as well as with
relevant staff and stakeholders on the ground.

3. ERF Manager collates assessment

The ERF Manager will collect and consolidate the assessment from each RB
member, and inform the RB, the OCHA HoO and the HC of the review’s
outcome. The RB’s recommendations will be provided to the HC for his or her
consideration.

4. HC reviews the RB members’ recommendations

Final authority lies with the HC, and he or she may decide to seek additional
advice. Exceptionally, he or she may decide not to follow the recommendations
of the RB. In such cases the rationale for the decision will be recorded for the file
and communicated to the RB.

5. HC convenes a meeting with RB, if necessary

The HC should convene a meeting any time it is considered necessary. One
instance is when a proposal is not approved by all members of the RB. In this
case, the HC or the OCHA HoO acting on his or her behalf must convene a
meeting of the RB within a reasonable time frame to address disagreements and
reach consensus.

6. HC makes a final decision on projects for ERF funding

If the RB cannot reach a consensus, the HC has the final say. In such cases the
rationale for the decision will be documented.

7. ERF Manager synthesizes main findings of the RB

A synthesis on the main findings of the RB (i.e. recurrent causes for proposal
rejection or most-compliant proposals) will be produced by the ERF Manager to
be presented to the AB every six months. The report will be drafted by the ERF
Manager, then reviewed and endorsed by the RB and the HC before being
presented to the AB. This narrative report should be supplemented by a tracking
matrix of projects maintained by the ERF Manager.

3.6. OCHA Headquarters (HQ)

Numerous sections within OCHA HQ provide resources and support to ERFs at

various stages. The main points of contact with HQ support are the following
sections:

Page 11 of 27
FCS: FCS takes the lead in establishing policies, procedures and standardization
to guide the global performance, effectiveness and accountability of country-
based pooled funds. More specifically:
 FCS acts as the primary HQ focal point ensuring timely and effective daily
support to ERF Managers and COs establishing, managing or closing ERFs.
 This includes providing appropriate guidance and tools (e.g. training,
country-based pooled fund project cycle management tool), arranging surge
capacity when needed, reviewing ERF policies and guidelines, and
developing monitoring, reporting and accountability frameworks.
 FCS provides support to the USG/ERC and OCHA senior managers on any
decision-making at HQ level regarding a specific, several or all ERFs.
 FCS leads the discussion on strategic, policy, programmatic and technical
humanitarian financing issues in close coordination with other relevant HQ
sections and branches, and when interacting with UN agencies, donors and
NGOs through IASC bodies and other relevant forums.
 FCS also identifies and analyses global trends and developments for
country-based pooled funds, provides key policy formulation, leads on
consolidation and dissemination of lessons learned and best practice,
facilitates communication and interaction across all pooled funds, oversees
the global evaluation of the funds, and provides general and consolidated
information to internal and external stakeholders.

Coordination and Response Division (CRD): The Director of CRD has overall
responsibility for managing OCHA’s field operations. On the ERC’s behalf, the
Director ensures the accountability of HoOs for the effective management of
COs, which includes the management of ERFs.12

For the Director to oversee the engagement of CRD in ERF management, the
CRD section chiefs are responsible for keeping the Director apprised of any
programmatic and/or policy decisions related to the ERFs.

As the main entry point for OCHA COs, desk officers should be informed of, and
engaged in, any developments and the effectiveness of ERFs in a given country.
They should partake in the planning and decision-making on the opening, closing
or modifying of ERFs together with FCS.

CRD is primarily responsible for workplans, cost plans and recruiting ERF staff
and surge deployments, supported by FCS.

ASB: ASB Geneva is accountable to the UN Controller’s Office for the

appropriate management and use of ERF funds in accordance with the relevant
12
Refer to OCHA’s Policy Instruction on The Roles and Responsibilities of Country Offices

Page 12 of 27
UN financial rules and regulations. The dedicated Pooled Fund Unit in ASB
undertakes the financial support functions outlined below.
All MoUs with UN agencies and grant agreements with NGOs relating to ERFs
prepared by the ERF Manager must be cleared by ASB prior to signature by the
parties. ASB reviews the provisions of the agreement in general, and the cost
plan in particular, to ensure funds are used for eligible activities (described in
section 5.2), and to ensure that the portion allocated to administrative and other
non-programme costs is according to the ERF Guidelines. ASB should receive
agreements for clearance at least one week prior to the start date of the project.
No commitments can be entered into by the parties until the agreements/MoUs
have been duly cleared and signed by the ASB signatory, who is the holder of
the delegation of authority from the UN Controller.13

Once ASB has cleared and signed the agreements/MoUs, a copy will be sent to
the OCHA CO for counter-signing by the HC and the implementing partner.
Following signature of agreements/MoUs at the country level, a copy will be sent
to ASB to disburse the funds. The OCHA CO keeps one original on file locally for
reference, the other original is kept by the implementing partner. Upon receipt of
the signed agreements/MoUs, ASB will disburse funds in accordance with the
terms outlined in the signed agreement, and within 10 working days of receipt,
with the assistance of the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG).

ASB will provide an annual financial statement to all ERF donors via the
Resource Mobilization Section (RMS). ASB will also clear all financial information
included in the annual report prepared by each ERF Manager for each Fund
before the report is submitted to RMS for official submission to donors. The same
applies to any other formal or informal financial report submitted to donors.

UNOG provides OCHA with treasury services for the fund transfers. UNOG will
assist ASB in processing electronic funds transfers to third parties (e.g. NGOs).

RMS: RMS is responsible for negotiating financial contributions to OCHA and

ERFs by donors and related grant agreements, including donor agreements for
ERFs. RMS is not involved in the negotiations between an ERF and its
recipients. Donors may approach RMS or an OCHA CO to express an interest in
funding a particular ERF. In cases where the donor communicates directly with
the OCHA CO, the OCHA HoO or responsible ERF Manager shall immediately
refer the donor to RMS. RMS will ensure, where necessary in consultation with
FCS, ASB and the OCHA HoO, that OCHA can comply with the donors’ grant
terms and conditions. RMS also ensures that OCHA complies with all its legally
binding obligations.

13
Refer to the United Nations Secretary-General’s bulletin on Financial Rules and Regulations of the United Nations
of 9 May 2003.

Page 13 of 27
  Prior to signature by ASB, all donor agreements must be channelled through
RMS to ensure consistency with precedence, clear terms and conditions,
negotiation of alternative wording, if required, and that the information is
properly recorded in the OCHA Contribution Tracking System (OCT).
 RMS shall also keep the OCHA CO informed of ongoing negotiations and
ensure that all donor grant agreements are shared with COs in a timely
manner. RMS also alerts responsible OCHA HoOs/ERF managers of the
donor reporting requirements and the grant’s expiration date.
 As focal point for donor agreement compliance, RMS shall be responsible for
the formal submission of reports, NCE requests, financial statements and
other grant-related correspondence with donors. All ERF reports shall be
cleared by FCS and ASB before submission to RMS.
 All contributions to ERFs are tracked in the OCT. ERF managers are
therefore encouraged to consult the OCT for the most up-to-date information
about the status of pledges to the ERFs.

Financial Tracking Service (FTS): FTS will capture donor contributions and
pledges made to ERFs based on reporting from RMS. ERF allocations to
recipient organizations and corresponding data—including implementing partner,
approval date, project title, CAP project code, GM code and sector—will be
reported to FTS by the ERF Manager. Additionally, the ERF Manager provides
FTS with updated data on cleared ERF grant agreements on a monthly basis.14
This reporting will allow FTS to present real-time funding information for each
ERF.

Partnership and Resource Mobilization Branch in NY and GVA (PRMB): PRMB

will support the development and implementation of a resource mobilization
strategy at the global level for ERFs in close consultation and coordination with
OCHA COs and FCS.

3.7. Recipient Organizations

The recipient organization submits applications to the ERF Manager with

supporting documents as per the proposal template.
Recipient organizations sign a written agreement with OCHA specifying the
terms and conditions applicable to the approved project. Recipient organizations
are also responsible for understanding and implementing all the requirements in
the signed agreements. During the implementation phase, recipient organizations
facilitate the monitoring of the projects in collaboration with the HC, OCHA CO,
cluster leads and other relevant parties. They also submit narrative and financial
reports as described in paragraph 7.1. below, and the agreement/MoU.

14
FTS reporting template is included in annex XIV of these guidelines.

Page 14 of 27
Recipient NGOs will facilitate the project audit by an audit firm appointed or
approved by the OCHA CO at the end of each project. The procurement of audit
services will be performed by the local service provider.15 Throughout the audit
process, recipient NGOs are responsible for responding to all necessary follow-
ups by the auditor and/or ERF Manager, and for providing any requested
documents.
UN agencies have their own standard procedures for financial audit. They are
required to produce narrative and financial reports according to the MoU.

4. Workflow16

The workflow below illustrates the entire project management cycle of an ERF. It
shows where various OCHA sections have responsibilities, and it provides
indicative benchmarks17 for processing the projects at different stages of the
management cycle. It is also annexed to this document.

15
The service provider differs in each case. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) serves as the main
service provider for OCHA COs, while the World Food Programme (WFP) is the service provider in some locations.
16
The ERF workflow is included in annex XV of these guidelines.
17
This particular timeline may be applicable only for particular emergencies and humanitarian situations.

Page 15 of 27
5. Finance and Administration

The OCHA CO is responsible for the daily management of the financial and
administrative activities of the ERF. The OCHA CO must maintain complete
records of all grant-related documents. The OCHA CO must also ensure that all
documents received from recipient organizations are thoroughly reviewed before
submitting them to ASB for action. Incomplete documents will be referred to the
OCHA CO for verification and revision if necessary. All ERF agreements/MoUs
will be cleared by OCHA ASB to ensure they conform to UN rules and
regulations.
When correct and complete documentation18 is submitted to OCHA ASB by the
OCHA CO on behalf of the HC, disbursement of the initial tranche of funds will
occur within 10 working days. Upon signature of the MoU, OCHA ASB will
transfer 100 per cent of the funds through one disbursement to UN agencies. For
UN agency grants amounting to US$5 million and above, funds will be disbursed
through more than one disbursement. In these circumstances an interim financial
statement will be required for the latter disbursements.
For NGO projects, OCHA ASB will transfer 80 per cent of the total project
amount in the first of two disbursements, and it will disburse the remaining funds
only after the final narrative and audited financial report are submitted and
approved. Once approved by OCHA ASB, disbursement of the final payment will
occur within 10 days. The OCHA CO will hire or stipulate a reputable audit firm to
conduct all audits for implementing NGOs.

5.1. Clearance of Agreements

All agreements and supporting documents must be cleared by ASB prior to final
signature by the HC and recipient organization. An agreement is typically cleared
when the holder of the delegation of authority from the UN Controller signs the
agreement indicating his or her clearance of the document.
The start date of the project is the date on which the last signatory (HC or
recipient organization) signs the agreement. The start date of a project cannot be
changed retroactively. The HC and/or the OCHA CO must not agree to formally
or informally allow a project to start before an agreement has been cleared and
signed.19

5.2. Eligible Expenditures

Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of these guidelines provide an overview of what is typically
considered to be eligible and ineligible expenditure for ERFs. This guidance can
serve as a reference for defining these categories in more detail for individual
Funds.

18
Checklists for project submissions to ASB Geneva and templates are included in annexes XVI to XX of these guidelines.
19
Backdating of projects is not allowed by the United Nations Office of the Controller.

Page 16 of 27
Eligible expenditures are expenditures that have been documented in the project
budget and incurred in accordance with the approved project proposal. There are
two categories of eligible expenditures: direct costs and indirect costs.20

Direct costs are project costs that have a direct impact on beneficiaries, such as
food, water pumps, shelter, direct transportation, nurses, doctors and programme
coordinators.

Indirect costs are costs that cannot be traced unequivocally to specific services,
projects or programmes. They include costs incurred by providing administrative
and other support functions to a range of operations, programmes and projects.

Indirect costs may be incurred when performing the following functions: recruiting
and servicing staff and consultants; procuring and contracting; evaluations;
budget preparation and control; financial operations; and accounting and
reporting. Indirect costs must not exceed 7 per cent of the total actual project
expenditure.

Below are some examples of direct and indirect costs:

Type of Costs Examples

Direct Costs Project personnel salaries and benefits
Material, equipment and supplies used for the project
Travel and transportation costs related to the project
Training, seminars and meeting costs related to the project
Utility costs for projects within their own facilities
Communication charges related to the project (phone, fax,
postal)
Any cost associated with project premises such as rental costs
Any other expenses necessary to achieve the project
objectives21
Indirect Costs Procurement services
Preparation and monitoring of budgets
Maintenance of project accounts
Control of project expenditures
Receipt and disbursement of funds
Financial reporting
Recruitment and human resources services
Legal services
Other administrative costs

20
The classification of any item will depend on the context. ASB will advise where the situation is not clear.
21
Security costs may be considered as direct cost on a case-by-case basis

Page 17 of 27
Indirect costs are referred to as Programme Support Costs (PSC) in agreements
with UN agencies, and as Administrative Costs in agreements with NGOs. PSC
is charged as a percentage of the approved expenditures incurred by the
recipient organization for each project. OCHA charges a 3 per cent flat rate as
PSC from expenditures by all recipient organizations.

The OCHA CO should consult ASB for additional guidance if there is any
concern about the classification of direct and indirect costs. Any exceptions to the
above guidance should be referred to ASB before including such items in a
project budget.

5.3. Ineligible Expenditures

Funding is typically not to be used to purchase capital assets, such as vehicles,
IT, and communication and office equipment, unless exceptionally authorized by
the HC.22

Payments for project personnel and rental expenses should be limited to the cost
arising directly as a result of implementing the project. These payments must
also be limited to the duration of the project.23

Costs related to NGO governance structures (i.e. salaries and travel expenses
for board members) and other general management related or non-operational
staff are not considered to be direct costs.

Funding can only be used for international travel expenses for those staff
members who are 100 per cent dedicated to the project. International travel will
only be reimbursed when it is clearly itemized in the project proposal and budget.

Grants are provided to implementing partners for humanitarian life-saving

activities approved in the project agreement. Thus, activities such as ERF
evaluations, audits and implementing partners’ consultancies are not eligible for
ERF grants and must not be included in the project budget.

Expenditures that have not been documented in the approved project budget will
not be eligible for reimbursement by OCHA.

5.4. Modifications of Project Activities

Expenditure variation within a budget category24 should not exceed a maximum
of 15 per cent of the amount approved by the HC, as stated in the signed
agreement.

Adjustments or modifications of less than 15 per cent in project activities are

acceptable as long as the new activities retain the same scope and nature of the
22
Security concerns or logistical challenges may necessitate revision of this clause based on country contexts. 
23
In general, cost-sharing will be reviewed on a case-by-case and specific-context basis.
24
Relevant budget categories are included in the ERF budget tool in annex XVIII of these guidelines.

Page 18 of 27
original grant. Variations in one category should be matched by a proportional
change in other categories. Recipient organizations do not need to seek the HC’s
approval for variations of less than 15 per cent.

Any variation in excess of 15 per cent within the budget category shall be subject
to prior consultations with OCHA and approval in writing from the HC.25 Major
changes in the scope of project activities or any increase in the total funding
amount require a new grant agreement. Requests for modifications of
agreements must be submitted to the HC in writing by the recipient
organization.26 These requests should explain why the agreement needs to be
amended, indicate the current operational status of the project and the
expenditures incurred to date.

With the submission of an NCE, an agreement can be modified to extend the

duration of the project. To extend the project duration, an amendment to the
original agreement must be signed by both parties. The HC will respond to the
recipient organization in writing, accepting, modifying or rejecting the request.27 If
accepted, this amendment becomes an integral part of the agreement and must
be cleared by ASB. The number and duration of NCEs for recipient organizations
has to be determined in-country by the AB based on programmatic
considerations. The ERF Manager is responsible for monitoring that the requests
remain within the agreed limit.

While the recipient organization is responsible for what is stipulated in the

agreement, the ERF Manager must review the implementation dates of all
projects on a monthly basis, and remind recipient organizations of the expiration
dates at least one month before an agreement expires. Recipient organizations
should also be advised that expenditures incurred after the agreement has
expired will not be eligible for reimbursement by OCHA.

5.5. Audits and Fees

Each project implemented by an NGO must be audited at least once during its
lifetime. OCHA hires independent external auditors to review the financial
activities of NGO implementing partners. To streamline the audit firm selection
process, the OCHA CO should engage with the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) to identify audit firms for long-term agreements. Projects
implemented by UN agencies and IOM are not audited by OCHA since these
organizations are audited independently by the appropriate UN bodies.

Recipient organizations of ERF grants are responsible for the management of

their grants, and they are accountable to the HC and OCHA for the entirety of the
ERF resources under their management. Recipient organizations shall respond
to all queries from the auditor to facilitate the audit, and to any additional
25
The Letter of Acceptance of Amendments to the budget is included in annex XXI (A) of these guidelines.
26
The ERF budget tool for amendments is included in annex XXI (B) of these guidelines.
27
The Letter of Acceptance of No-Cost Extension for NGOs and UN agencies are included in annexes XXII (A and B) of
these guidelines.

Page 19 of 27
requests upon completion of the audit. If there is no response from the recipient
organization to the auditor within the deadline, the auditor is authorized to submit
the report to OCHA based on the information available.

Audits, corresponding costs and auditors’ fees shall be charged directly to OCHA
and not included in project budgets. Banking fees associated with the use of
UNDP or money dealers in lieu of an NGO bank account should also be paid
directly from OCHA. They should not be included in project budgets, but should
be linked with them.

5.6. Managing the Audit Process

The OCHA CO is responsible for managing the local audit process. This includes
procuring audit services, monitoring audit visits, following up on audit issues and
maintaining the validity of audit service contracts. If necessary, an audit focal
point within the OCHA CO should be assigned to ensure the process is managed
smoothly.
The procurement of audit services must be done through the OCHA CO local
service provider in accordance with the prevailing procurement rules. The OCHA
CO must not conduct the solicitation of bids independently, because OCHA has
limited procurement delegation in the field.28 The OCHA CO should use the
standard ERF audit ToR29 for reference when sending procurement requests to
its local service provider.
The process of procuring audit services may take up to three months depending
on the local service provider. The OCHA CO must take this into account when
planning its audits. The procurement process should start as early as possible in
order to avoid unnecessary delays.
Once an audit firm has been selected, the OCHA CO must meet with the auditors
to review the schedule of audit visits. The OCHA CO should monitor the audit
schedule, and assist the auditors as necessary in obtaining access to
implementing partners and their financial records. The OCHA CO must also
follow up with auditors and partners to resolve any queries or issues that arise
during the audit. Financial and administrative policy questions should be referred
to OCHA ASB for guidance.
It is very important for COs to maintain the validity of audit service contracts. The
duration of the contract must be monitored to ensure that it does not expire
before a new contract has been obtained, or the existing contract has been
extended. The terms of the audit contract should also be reviewed to ensure that
newly signed grant agreements can be covered by the contract. The terms and
duration of audit contracts must be modified in accordance with the prevailing
procurement rules of the OCHA CO’s local service provider.

28
Procurement activities in the COs are processed through the relevant service providers.
29
The standard ERF audit TOR and template are included in annexes XXIII and XXIV of these guidelines.

Page 20 of 27
5.7. Transfers of Equipment and Property
Non-expendable equipment or property financed by OCHA as part of an ERF
grant is the property of OCHA. Non-expendable equipment is defined as an item
that has a purchase price of $1,500 or more, or the equivalent in local currency at
the United Nations official rate of exchange on the date of purchase, and has an
anticipated service life of at least five years.30

Upon completion of the project, such assets shall continue to be used for the
purposes of the grant. These items may therefore be contributed free of charge
to the direct beneficiaries of the grant, or donated to support a similarly
appropriate activity in the beneficiary country. In the event these assets are not
donated to the beneficiaries or used for a similar activity, they must be returned
to OCHA within 30 days of the completion of the project. The OCHA CO should
decide with the recipient organization how to dispose of these items.

6. Mainstreaming Gender31
All applicant organizations shall ensure that the IASC GM is applied to all
proposals using the templates provided by the OCHA CO. The AB and OCHA
CO shall ensure that the resultant GM codes are tracked and included in CAP
projects funded by ERF. The IASC GM is designed to assist the HC, the HCTs
and the recipient organizations to mainstream gender during design and funding,
and throughout the project implementation.

GM Codes
The GM codes, on a 0-2 scale, whether projects are designed to effectively meet the differing
needs of women, girls, men and boys:

Gender Code Description

Gender is not reflected anywhere in the project sheet
0 The project design does not consider gender

The project’s needs assessment includes a gender analysis and/or one or more
activities or outcomes respond to the distinct needs of women, girls, boys or
men*
Contributes in a limited way to gender equality
1
 If the gender issue is addressed for the first and only time in the
outcomes section, the project is still considered to be gender unaware
and coded 0

30
Please refer to the Property Management Manual
31
The GM is a tool developed in 2009/10 by the Sub-Working Group on Gender and Humanitarian Action and CAP to
facilitate tracking of gender allocations in humanitarian projects, and to improve accountability to the integration of gender
perspectives in humanitarian projects. For specific guidance on application of the IASC GM for each sector/cluster, refer
to the One Response website:
http://oneresponse.info/crosscutting/gender/Pages/The%20IASC%20Gender%20Marker.aspx
The IASC GM FAQs are included in annex XXV of these guidelines.

Page 21 of 27
GM Codes
The GM codes, on a 0-2 scale, whether projects are designed to effectively meet the differing
needs of women, girls, men and boys:

Gender Code Description

The project’s needs assessment includes a gender analysis, and the gender
2a
analysis is reflected in the project’s activities and outcomes
Gender
Contributes significantly to gender equality
Mainstreaming
As a result of the gender analysis, the project is targeted to one particular group
– women, girls, boys or men – who are disadvantaged or discriminated against
because of their gender roles*
2b
The principal purpose is to advance gender equality
Targeted
Action
* Please note that stand-alone Gender-Based Violence response and prevention
projects, as well as nutrition projects being implemented in the first phases of a
crisis, are always coded on the 0-1-2b scale.

7. Accountability
In consultation with the HC, OCHA HoO, AB and the HCT, the ERF Manager
shall develop and formulate a detailed monitoring and reporting (M&R) plan for
the ERF that outlines the strategy for monitoring performance and results. In
addition, the ERF Manager shall develop a risk analysis, management and
mitigating system. This work will be based on a standard M&R framework and
risk management tool developed and supported by FCS.

7.1. M&R Plan

In the context of the M&R plan for ERF-funded projects, the following definitions
shape the framework:
 Monitoring: refers to periodic site visits of projects that have received
funds from an ERF. The purpose of monitoring is to track and verify
reported information, and to provide an element of oversight to the project.
 Reporting: refers to periodic collection of programmatic and financial
reports of all recipient organizations that receive funding from an ERF.

The M&R plan shall, as a minimum, provide details on:

 Strategy for monitoring of ERF-funded projects through site visits: How
many projects will be visited and how often? If not all projects are to be
visited, the plan shall outline the criteria and process for selecting a
targeted sample of projects. Define format32 of monitoring visits and
describe who will undertake these (e.g. ERF Unit, cluster leads, a
designated inter-agency review group, independent evaluators).
 ERF reporting requirements for recipient organizations and for the Fund
itself: The plan shall provide information on type, format and frequency of

32
The Project Monitoring Report Template is included in annex XXVI of these guidelines.

Page 22 of 27
 ERF reporting and outline how reports will be disseminated.

7.1.1 Project Reporting by Recipient Organizations:

As stipulated in the agreement, a brief progress report33 on project activities

and financial implementation shall be submitted midway through any project
longer than six months. Any constraints (e.g. financial, logistical, security)
affecting the project shall be included in the report or reported directly to the
OCHA CO. For projects of less than six months duration, only a final report is
required.

Within three months of the project’s completion, a final narrative and financial
report34 shall be submitted. Should the project require an extension, a request
explaining the circumstances shall be submitted no later than two weeks prior
to the planned project end date.

The final narrative report shall compare the project achievements against its
objectives and describe the activities, outcomes and the background. The
report shall include lessons learned and an explanation of any variance
between planned and actual outcomes, including whether the GM code varied
between project proposal and actual implementation.

The financial report shall be presented according to the budget proposal

format categories. For NGOs, the final report shall be accompanied by an
audited account of project spending, as well as supporting documentation if
necessary. Any unspent money has to be returned to OCHA within 30 days
after the submission of the final report. The OCHA CO must follow up with
recipient organizations in writing to ensure that overdue financial reports and
refunds are received in a timely manner.

The OCHA CO and HQ reserve the right to organize visits with partners,
external experts or donors to review completed or ongoing project activities.

7.1.2 Stakeholder (including donors) Reporting by the Fund:

The HC will issue a consolidated annual report for the Fund as a whole. The
annual report shall report to stakeholders on the use of funds and shall, as a
minimum, provide the level and type of information outlined in the guidance
note and template provided by FCS.35 Individual reporting against donor
contributions should be avoided.

The annual report is prepared by the ERF Manager and finalized in-country
with the OCHA HoO’s review. Thereafter, the OCHA CO shall send the draft

33
The format for the progress report is the same as in the final reporting template and as in the ERF Budget tool.
34
Report templates (narrative and financial) are included in annexes XXVII and XVIII of these guidelines.
35
The annual report guidance note and template are included in annex XXVIII (A and B) of these guidelines.

Page 23 of 27
 report to FCS for programmatic review by April as a first draft. FCS will be
responsible for reviewing the document and sharing it with ASB for financial
review. Any changes arising during the review process will be shared by FCS
with the ERF Manager, who will be responsible for obtaining final acceptance
of the changes by the OCHA HoO and sign-off from the HC. The final due
date for the ERF Manager to send the OCHA HoO- and HC-approved report
to FCS and RMS is 30 June. RMS is responsible for the final submission of
the report to donors. Only after the report has been formally shared with
donors are all parties permitted to share the document externally.

To maximize transparency, final project narrative and financial reports,

evaluation reports and the HC’s consolidated annual report will be made
available on the OCHA external website.36

FCS will produce a global annual report to provide a comprehensive and

consolidated update on country-based pooled funds. The yearly report will
include information on all active ERFs and Common Humanitarian Funds
(CHFs). It will feature trends, best practices, lessons learned and challenges,
and showcase success stories and achievements of the pooled funds.

7.2. Evaluations and Reviews

All organizations receiving funding from the ERF should be committed to sharing
all evaluation results with the HC, RB, AB and OCHA upon request. In addition to
the monitoring plans of the recipient organizations, the HC may also commission
periodic reviews of activities funded through the ERF in order to encourage
lessons learned, and to identify clear opportunities for experience sharing and
practices with the potential to be replicated across various comparable projects
supported by the Fund. The AB may also suggest and participate in joint
assessments with partners, solicit inputs from experts, or commission external
evaluations to enhance organizations’ work. Cluster leads may also review and
evaluate ongoing or completed activities supported with resources from the Fund
as part of their broader mandate. Cluster priorities and indicators should inform
these reviews and evaluations.

As an additional measure of accountability, auditors of organization and/or

system-wide operations (i.e. Office of Internal Oversight Services, Board of
Auditors, etc.) will conduct operational and financial audits of individual projects
as part of broader audit purposes.

External evaluations will be triennial and will be supported by OCHA’s Evaluation

Guidance Section and FCS. This will help assess the Fund’s performance and
establish recommendations for improvement. Any request for evaluations by
donors at the country level must be directed to FCS. Such evaluations should be

36
Refer to http://www.unocha.org/what-we-do/humanitarian-financing/pooled-funds

Page 24 of 27
funded bilaterally by ERF donors.

OCHA HQ-led internal evaluation missions to learn lessons and review ERFs will
be undertaken. These internal evaluations could include assessing performance,
compliance with guidance, effectiveness and/or relevance of the ERF to the
context, etc. This could be requested by the HC, OCHA COs and/or OCHA HQ
(i.e. FCS/CRD).

Each ERF shall also undertake an annual stakeholder user survey to gauge user
satisfaction and to identify areas that need improvement. FCS can provide the
ERF Unit with tools and good practices for surveys.

E. REFERENCES

Normative or superior references

Secretary-General’s bulletin on Financial Rules and Regulations of the United
Nations of 9 May 2003

Related guidance
CHF Standardization Guidelines
CERF Life-Saving Criteria (other CERF documents:
http://ochaonline.un.org/cerf/)
Policy Instruction on Resource Mobilization
Policy Instruction on the Roles and Responsibilities of Country Offices

F. MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE

FCS in the Corporate Programmes Division, OCHA NY, will ensure compliance
with these guidelines through regular communication, field missions, compliance
tracking, evaluations/reviews and reports from the field.

G. DATES

These guidelines are effective from 09 October 2012. The guidelines will be
reviewed and updated regularly to reflect major evolutions in United Nations and
humanitarian practices. The next scheduled review will be conducted no later
than 01 July 2013. Per the Policy Instruction on OCHA Guidance Materials,
however, the USG may at any time recall or initiate a review of any OCHA official
guidance.

Page 25 of 27
H. CONTACT

The contact for these guidelines is the Chief, FCS, Corporate Programmes
Division, OCHA NY.

I. HISTORY

These guidelines were approved on 09 October 2012. These guidelines have not
been amended.

Page 26 of 27
Annex I. LIST OF ACRONYMS

AB Advisory Board
ASB Administrative Services Branch
CAP Consolidated Appeal Process
CERF Central Emergency Response Fund
CHAP Common Humanitarian Action Plan
CHF Common Humanitarian Fund
CO Country Office (OCHA)
CRD Coordination and Response Division
ERC Emergency Relief Coordinator
ERF Emergency Response Fund
FCS Funding Coordination Section
FTS Financial Tracking Service
GHD Good Humanitarian Donorship
GM Gender Marker
HC Humanitarian Coordinator
HCT Humanitarian Country Team
HoO Head of Office (OCHA)
HQ Headquarters
HRF Humanitarian Response Fund
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IOM International Organization for Migration
MoU memorandum of understanding
M&R monitoring & reporting
NGO non-governmental organization
NCE No-Cost Extension
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OCT OCHA Contribution Tracking System
PRMB Partnership and Resource Mobilization Branch
PSC Programme Support Cost
RB Review Board
RMS Resource Mobilization Section
ToR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNOG United Nations Office at Geneva
USG Under-Secretary-General
WFP World Food Programme

Page 27 of 27