Emergency Response FundGuidelines

Emergency Response FundGuidelines

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Review Board for the Emergency Response Fund (ERF)

  1. The Review Board is formed as an advisory and technical body to analyze and endorse proposals submitted by NGOs and UN Agencies for grants from the Emergency Response Fund.
  1. The task of the Review Board will be to analyze the feasibility and relevance of proposed projects within the context of relevant sector concerns and the CAP (when applicable) and offer technical recommendations in accordance with the ERF Guidelines.
  1. The Review Board will be comprised of representatives and alternates from NGOs and UN Agencies nominated by the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC). The HC will chair Review Board meetings and OCHA will provide the secretariat support for the Board as well as administer the Fund.
  1. OCHA will receive project proposals from applicants and conduct a general screeningto make sure they provide all the required information. Once this is completed, OCHA will distribute the proposals by e-mail to the Board members. The Board members will respond to OCHA within a suggested timeframe of three days, indicating whether or not they agree with the recommendations. Failure to respond within three days will imply agreement to the proposal. The Review Board should conduct proposal review in person; although virtual review may be allowed.
  1. A quorum should be agreed upon by the RB to determine when a project can be considered for approval in case a RB member is unable to attend a meeting or provide their input within the suggested timeframe.
  1. In case one or several Board members do not agree with a recommendation for approval on a project proposal, OCHA will request the HC to convene a Board meeting seeking to achieve consensus. If required, the Board may invite a representative from the UN Agency / NGO in question to a meeting to provide a briefing and clarification as appropriate. However, an UN Agency / NGO representative cannot participate in the actual discussions on funding decisions.
  1. In the event that a proposal requires further reviewing by the Board, it is suggested that no more than two weeksshould be permitted for a decision to be reached. In the event full consensus has not been achieved by the end of this period, and if the majority is in favor, the HCwill make the final decision on the approval of the proposal.
  1. Each participating UN Agency / NGO will ensure a continuous representation on the Review Board in order to facilitate quick responses. In the event an UN Agency / NGO is not represented, or fails to respond to consultations within the given deadlines, it will be assumed as consenting with unanimous decisions taken by the other Board members if quorum has been met.

Emergency Response FundGuidelines

The main procedural functions of the RB are:

  • Once the composition of the RB has been endorsed by the HC, RB members should agree on a set of technical criteria to assess all proposals. RB members may also consider putting in place a scoring system (e.g. checklists, scales or thresholds) to facilitate the work. The set of criteria adopted by the RB must include the Gender Marker (GM);
  • Once the ERF Manager submits a given proposal to the RB, RB members will have a suggested timeframe of three days to come back with their assessment, clearly indicating their recommendation to approve, approve subject to modifications or reject the proposal. The RB recommendations to the HC should take into account the recipient organizations’ performance with previous grants from the Fund, timeliness of implementation, and audit report findings. In order for the RB to take these into account, the ERF Manager should make these and any other relevant information available to them in an easily accessible modality. The ERF Manager will collect and consolidate the assessment from each RB member and inform the RB, the HoO and the HC of the outcome of the review;
  • Within this three day window, RB members are also encouraged to corroborate, if and when necessary, any technical or operational contents of the proposal with relevant clusters/sectoral groups, as well as with relevant staff and stakeholders on the ground;
  • The recommendations from the RB will be provided to the HC for his/her consideration. However, final authority lies with the HC and he/she may decide to seek additional advice and may in special cases 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;
  • When a proposal is not approved by all members of the RB, the HC or the HoO acting on his/her behalf, must convene a meeting of the RB to address disagreements and reach consensus;
  • If the RB can still not reach a consensus, the HC will have a final say. In such cases the rationale for the decision will also be recorded for the file;
  • A synthesis of the main findings of the RB (i.e. recurrent causes for rejection, most compliant proposals, etc.) 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 it is presented to the AB.