Q&A's subsidy framework Contributing to Peaceful and Safe Societies 2024-2031

Please note that the answer initially published in response to Q41 was incorrect – the answer has been updated per 4 December.

Please also note that Appendix VI Guide to model budget and Appendix VII Model budget format have been updated due to a mistake in the original version (see Q83 and Q132 below).

Eligibility

1. Would organisations that work on both security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation, AND have activities around development cooperation and humanitarian interventions at the same time, be eligible for the programme grant?

The grant programme aims to support internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) whose activities focus explicitly on the policy themes central to this grant programme: security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation. This must be evidenced by the annual accounts and/or financial statements submitted by the applicant, which should prove that at least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to these policy themes (see threshold criterion D.3, p.13 of the Grant Policy Framework). Organisations that have activities that are related to other policy themes can still be eligible for grant funding, as long as they meet the requirement listed in threshold criterion D.3.

2. Section 5.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.8) states that applications on behalf of an alliance are not eligible for grant funding. Could you provide your definition of ‘an alliance’? And could you clarify whether applications from consortia of several organisations that are not formally connected as an alliance would be considered eligible?

As stated in threshold criterion D.2 of the Grant Policy Framework, the applicant needs to submit the application as an independent applicant, and applications made on behalf of an alliance are not eligible. We understand an alliance to be the same thing as a consortium: a contractual partnership without legal personality, whose partners themselves each have legal personality, that is aimed at achieving common objectives by carrying out activities, such that each partner delivers part of the necessary input and bears part of the accompanying risks. 

Applicants may engage third parties for the implementation of the activity. This can include sub-granting financial means to a different entity (either local or international) as part of the activities of the programme, and can include sub-contracting contractors for technical delivery concerning the implementation of specific aspects of the programme. However, it is the individual applicant that needs to meet the different threshold and quality criteria, and we only look at the individual applicant when we assess the proposal.

An applicant can list third parties in its application in the abovementioned sense, if it chooses to. But needs in any case to make sure that the threshold criteria and especially the quality criteria are responded to thoroughly for its own organisation and proposed activities  – including criteria on inclusive and equal partnerships, and locally led programming. For this, applicants may want to indicate how they would do sub-granting and sub-contracting, but we are not going to assess the sub-grantees and sub-contractors themselves.

3. Will an organisation be eligible to submit an application for the Contributing to Peaceful and Safe Societies grant programme as a lead applicant and then separately as a subcontractor/additional partner to another lead organisation?

Refer to Q2 above. Applications must be submitted by single applicants, applications submitted on behalf of/by an alliance (or consortium) are not eligible. Please refer to threshold criteria D.2. Organisations, however, may submit an application themselves and be a third party to another organisation that is submitting (as a single applicant) a proposal at the same time.

4. Threshold criterion D.3 reads that ‘At least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme: security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation.’ The criterion seems to arbitrarily restrict the field of who can apply – thereby restricting competition – on the basis of the relative volume of activity that we believe to be irrelevant to the grant. Could the MFA please consider to remove this criterion?

As stated in chapter 1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.2), this grant programme aims to provide prolonged support to organisations that specialise in the relevant policy themes. Section 5.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.8) states that organisations whose activities are not explicitly focused on security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation, and whose activities revolve primarily around development cooperation and humanitarian assistance in a broader sense, are not eligible for grant funding. These type of organisations can access different lines of funding. The Ministry has for this reason chosen to include threshold criterion D.3 to ensure that only specialised organisations are eligible for funding. The criterion will therefore not be removed.

5. Are United Nations (UN) agencies eligible to apply for the grant as an Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO)?

No. Only internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) are eligible for a grant, please refer to threshold criterion D.1 and section 5.1 of the Grant Policy Framework. It is up to the applicant to show that they meet all the elements of a CSO/NGO in line with the definition provided in the Grant Policy Framework (p.i). An intergovernmental organisation, which is not a CSO/NGO, cannot apply – as stated in the Grant Policy Framework (section 5.1, p.8).

6. Are UN agencies excluded from acting a partners in bids for this grant?

No. UN agencies can act as non-financial third partners, sub-grantees and/or sub-contractors to CSOs/NGOs that are eligible for grant funding (please note: also refer to Q2 above).

7. Are specialised units within IGOs (including Regional IGOs) eligible to apply for a grant?

No. As stated in the Grant Policy Framework (threshold criterion D.1, and section 5.1, p.8), intergovernmental organisations are not eligible for grant funding. This includes specialised units within IGOs.

8. Are programmes that are hosted within international organisations, and that are not registered as an individual legal entity – but that do adhere to a separate governing body and decision-making structure that differs from the host organisation – eligible to apply as an applicant for the grant?

No. Only internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) that possess legal personality under civil law are eligible for a grant (see Grant Policy Framework, p.i, and threshold criterion D.1).

9. Our programme is housed at a larger organisation. The (larger) organisation is registered in two separate jurisdictions (the US and UK). Would our programme be eligible without referencing the exceeding staff member’s salary, as that one person is employed by the larger organisation? If this does not apply, would our programme be eligible to apply under the entity (US) that does not employ the exceeding salary (UK)? In other words, not apply under the registered entity that employs the CEO/President exceeding the threshold (UK).

In line with Q8 above, only applicants that possess legal personality under civil law are eligible for a grant (see Grant Policy Framework, p.i, threshold criterion D.1). All criteria are applicable to the applying legal person. As a consequence, in relation to threshold criterion D.6 the country where the applying organisation is legally established determines the maximum remuneration applicable to the individual members of the management and board. Please note that if a grant is awarded, the applying organisation will receive the grant and as such will be fully responsible for implementing the activities for which the grant is awarded, and for complying with the obligations attached to the grant.

10. Could you please clarify if UK-based Community Interest Companies are eligible to apply? Also, are you interested in receiving proposals from diaspora-led organisations?

Non-Dutch organisations are eligible for funding as long as they are internationally operating civil society organisations (CSOs/NGOs) (as defined on p.i of the Grant Policy Framework).

Community Interest Companies are eligible if they meet threshold criteria D.1 until D.7 concerning the applicant in the Grant Policy Framework. Criteria D1 stipulates that only internationally operating civil society organisations (CSOs/NGOs), which needs to be a not-for-profit organisation. The organisation should therefore be able to demonstrate that it has not making financial profit as an aim. This should be evidenced by the constitution and financial statements.

Proposals from diaspora-led organisations are eligible as long as they meet and show they do, threshold criterium D.1 until D.7.

11.  We noted that North Macedonia and other Western Balkans countries are not listed as Dutch SRoL focus countries. Could you please confirm if these regions are eligible under the terms of your grant?

No, these regions are not eligible under the terms of this grant. As stated in section 3.2 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.6) and threshold criteria D.14 and D.15, the grant programme is focused on the Dutch SRoL focus countries. The proposed adaptive, locally led programming activities should be implemented in no fewer than two and no more than four SRoL focus countries. The proposed local, national and regional policy influencing activities should target the SRoL focus countries. International policy influencing activities should build as much as possible on insights gained in SRoL focus countries.

12. Are applications for this grant for implementation in other conflict affected and fragile countries outside of the SRoL focus countries eligible for funding? 

No. See Q11 above.

13. Can an organisation registered in Pakistan to work for around 3 million Afghan people who are living in Pakistan, apply under this call and work for the Afghan as per the guidelines of the call under SRoL activities?

No. As stated in section 3.2 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.6), the grant programme is focused on the Dutch SRoL focus countries, please also refer to threshold criteria D.14 and D.15. The proposed adaptive, locally led programming activities should be implemented in (no fewer than two and no more than four) Dutch SRoL focus countries.  The proposed local, national and regional policy influencing activities should target the SRoL focus countries. Pakistan is not included in the list of Dutch SRoL focus countries.

14. As this seems to be a multi-country call, can one organisation submit multiple proposals for different countries or the same country?

No. As stated in section 5.2 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.8), applicants are eligible for no more than one grant under the Contributing to Peaceful and Safe Societies grant programme. If an applicant submits more than one application, only the application received first will be considered. All subsequent applications will be rejected. Please also refer to threshold criterion D.7.

Procedural

15. Is there a way to check if we have a valid ORIA?

This information should be available within your own organisation, e.g. within your financial administration. If you have received previous Dutch government grant funding recently, an ORIA was part of the requirements to receive this funding. Your financial administration would have this ORIA on file. Please note that an ORIA is valid for four years only.

16. If we are completing an ORIA, should we assume that the track record projects submitted as part of the ORIA will not be assessed as part of the application to the grant? Would it make sense to use the same track record example if it is relevant for both the ORIA and the application?

As stated in section 10.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.13), only applicants that satisfy all threshold criteria are invited by the Ministry to submit an Organisational Risk and Integrity Assessment (ORIA), an ORIA update form, or an ORIA light form. The invitation to submit an ORIA will explain which organisation is required to provide what information.

This means that the track record submitted with the application will be assessed before applicants are requested to submit an ORIA. Applicants can choose to include the same track record examples in the submission of their ORIA as the ones they have used in the application for the grant programme.

17. Do the vision documents have to be linked to the focus countries?

No, there is no requirement for the vision documents to be linked to the Dutch SRoL focus countries.

18. On p. 6 of the Grant Policy framework, it says that “applicants should submit a brief context analysis for each SROL focus country and the planned intervention strategy”. It is indicated (top of p. 7) that for applicants working on conflict mediation there is no maximum number of SROL focus countries. However, in the Programme proposal template (part 3, p. 2), it says that these applicants (that focus entirely on conflict mediation) “are requested to present a maximum of four context analyses”. Could you please clarify whether applicants that work entirely on conflict mediation should present a context analysis for each of the countries they propose to work in?

The requirement of no more than four SRoL focus countries for adaptive, locally led programming activities does not apply for applications that focus entirely (i.e., 100% of the requested grant funding) on conflict mediation, because it is difficult to predict where and when the need for conflict mediation will arise. The requirement of no less than two SRoL focus countries does continue to apply.

This means that applicants can choose to use the grant funding in more than four SRoL focus countries. To be able to assess if the applicant meets the different quality criteria, applicants are requested to submit a maximum of four context analyses. Hence, if the applicant submits an application that aims to use the grant funding in five or more SRoL focus countries – only four context analyses have to be submitted.

19. Are we understanding correctly that applicants should submit only one text of maximum 3,000 words outlining its intervention strategies (summarizing policy influencing and the various country-level programmes)?

Yes, applicants are requested to submit a presentation of up to 3,000 words of the planned intervention strategies, including an overview of the corresponding types of activities, that the applicant expects to apply to achieve the foreseen outcomes. These 3,000 words should be broken down into the intervention strategies the applicant foresees to undertake to achieve foreseen outcomes in terms of policy influencing and in terms of country-level adaptive, locally led programming (and how these two elements will be linked together).

20. Is there scope within this tender process to submit text which form a part of the tender documents but which should be treated as confidential within the Ministry?

Documents submitted in relation to a grant application will be treated as confidential. If any cause would arise to consider to share information with third parties, the organisation whose information is involved will first be asked for its view to see whether there is an important reason or interest to not provide the information.

21. Page 9 of the Grant Policy Framework states: “The showcases refer to activities carried out in the period 2013-2022, and whose outcome/impact was achieved in the period 2020-2022.” Given that the achievement period aligns with the peak of the COVID pandemic, is it also possible to reference initiatives with results most visible either prior to 2020 or in 2023?

It is not allowed to refer to activities whose outcome/impact was achieved prior to 2020. However, given that submission of proposals will take place in December 2023 – and that we are looking for showcases that present results of applicants’ experience with applying a continuous learning loop, the Ministry does allow for referring to activities whose outcome/impact was achieved in 2023 – meaning the period is extended to 2020-2023.

22. Can you share the assessment points that will be dedicated to each mandatory annexes, especially the programme proposal, the four vision documents, the risk analysis and risk strategy, and the budget?

No, the Ministry will not share the scoring grid that will be used for assessing the proposals prior to submission of the proposals. The scoring grid will be used to conduct the quality assessment of those proposals that pass the threshold test based on the substantive assessment criteria listed in section 10.3 of the Grant Policy Framework. Those applicants that pass the threshold test will receive the outcomes of the quality assessment, which will include the scoring grid applied.

Content and scope of the grant

23. Can you confirm how you define community security? There seems to be an emphasis on civilian protection, in contrast to other definitions that centre on communities identifying and leading on the response to their security and safety concerns.

The Netherlands does not prescribe a specific definition of community security concepts. As stated in section 2.2.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.3), the Netherlands seeks to work within the policy theme of ‘security for persons and communities’ with persons and communities that are experiencing insecurity (caused by individual or organised, armed and non-armed, state or non-state actors), by supporting them to apply nonviolent approaches to conflict prevention and resolution. Specifically, the grant programme aims to contribute to programmes that support efforts by persons and communities to break violent conflict cycles and thereby reduce the levels of violence and fear of violence. These programmes include: 

• community security programmes, including efforts to enhance the interface between demand for, and supply of, security (through, for example, strengthening protection of civilians policy and practice);
• programmes aimed at strengthening personal and community conflict management behaviour and mechanisms (through, for example, unarmed civilian protection).

For both types of programmes, the Netherlands is committed to gender-responsive and inclusive security mechanisms, mental health and psychosocial support, and the promotion of nonviolent conflict resolution pathways and infrastructures. Further information can also be found in the SRoL Theory of Change, page 9 and 10 (Theory of Change - Security and Rule of Law (English, January 2023) | Publication | Government.nl).

24. There is strict guidance to address one of the two policy themes central to the grant programme (security for persons and communities, or peacebuilding and conflict mediation) and not both. But many would argue that security is central to building peace. Can you clarify what it would take for an application to be rejected in this way?

To be eligible for a grant, applications must address one of the two policy themes described in section 2.2.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (pp.3-4). Applicants are free to explain how they see the linkages between the two policy themes, but their proposed activities have to address one of the two policy themes. Applications addressing both policy themes will be rejected.

Applicants have to make clear in their application form (criterion D.8) which of the two SRoL policy themes the grant funding requested focuses on. This must correspond with annex 5 to the application form (using the mandatory format in Appendix 4.iii to the grant policy framework) and annex 8 to the application form (using the mandatory format in Appendix 4.vi to the grant policy framework).

25. Can you confirm if applicants should also select a sub-theme within each policy objective or if we can target both (e.g. peacebuilding AND/OR conflict mediation). We note that 4 applications will be awarded aimed at peacebuilding and 2 applications awarded aimed at conflict mediation – does this imply we cannot cover both?

As indicated under Q24 above, applicants have to make clear in their application form (criterion D.8) which of the two SRoL policy themes the grant funding requested focuses on. This must correspond with annex 5 to the application form (using the mandatory format in Appendix 4.iii to the grant policy framework) and annex 8 to the application form (using the mandatory format in Appendix 4.vi to the grant policy framework).

No further selection of sub-themes is required, with the exception of organisations whose applications focus entirely (i.e., 100% of the requested grant funding) on conflict mediation. These applicants should make this clear in the application form and corresponding annexes – as for these applications the requirement of no more than four SRoL focus countries for adaptive, locally led programming activities does not apply. Applicants that wish to use grant funding for peacebuilding AND conflict mediation activities automatically fall in the peacebuilding category, for which a minimum of two SRoL focus countries applies, and a maximum of four SRoL focus countries.

26. The grant programme is focused on the current list of Dutch SRoL focus countries. What happens to the grant implementation in future, if a current SRoL focus country is removed from the list, or a new focus country is added?

The starting point for granting is the submitted application. If a change of focus countries occurs, implementing organisations and the Ministry will discuss the matter to examine to what extent compliance with the changes is possible.

27. Is there any flexibility to the maximum of four SRoL focus countries for adaptive, locally led programming activities? Specifically, must all focus countries be defined at the application stage? For example, what would be allowed in the case that four countries are selected at the outset of the programme, but contextual factors mean it makes sense to stop activities in one country and start activities in another country instead (so over the grant programme period, there would be a total of five countries, but no more than four at one time)?

In their application, applicants have to make clear in which SRoL focus countries (minimum of two, maximum of four – with exception of applications that focus entirely (i.e., 100% of the requested grant funding) on conflict mediation) they will undertake adaptive, locally led programming activities. Should a change in contextual factors over time call for a re-assessment and possible adjustment of the planned activities and focus countries, this can be discussed with the Ministry – in line with the foreseen adaptive programming approach.

28. We note that the Dutch government has focus countries, but the Grant Policy Framework also notes: "The outcomes of the proposed activities should therefore transcend country-level outcomes and have a broader scope of application (i.e., they should also be applicable in other countries).'" 

a) Recognising that conflict systems transcend national boundaries, are we able to include cross-border activities and activities in countries adjacent to the focus countries? 

If proposed activities address conflict systems that transcend national boundaries, activities that specifically address these systems are eligible as long as they take the conflict dynamics in the SRoL focus countries as a starting point.

b) And are we correct in understanding that sub-regional, regional, national and international advocacy activities that draw on the lessons from work in the focus countries can be included?

Yes. As stated in section 3.2 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.6), the proposed local, national and regional policy influencing activities should target the SRoL focus countries. International policy influencing activities should build as much as possible on insights gained in SRoL focus countries.

29. Does the policy influencing at international level have to draw on engagement in (an) SRoL focus country/countries, or can it draw on operational lessons/experiences drawn from the organisation’s engagement in other parts of the world (not funded under this grant)?

Yes. As stated in section 3.2 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.6), the proposed international policy influencing activities should build as much as possible on insights gained in SRoL focus countries. This means these activities can also draw on insights and experiences drawn from the applicant’s engagement in countries that are not on Dutch SRoL focus countries.

30. Can you please clarify the target countries of policy influencing? Can these be any of the SRoL focus countries or only the ones that we will be targeting in our country-level programming?

The target countries for policy influencing are not limited to the countries the applicant is targeting in its country-level adaptive, locally led programming. However, as stated in section 3.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.5), the proposed programme should consist of two components of activities (evidence-based policy influencing and country-level adaptive, locally led programming) that should be linked together by integrating a learning loop between these two components. This means that the Ministry expects to see how the proposed country-level programming will feed into the proposed policy influencing (and vice versa).

31. Page 6 of the Grant Policy Framework states: “Because the Contributing to Peaceful and Safe Societies grant programme is funded out of the centrally managed SRoL budget, the outcomes of the proposed activities should transcend country-level outcomes and have a broader scope of application (i.e., they should also be applicable in other countries)”. We would appreciate further clarification on the meaning of ‘applicable in other countries’? Does this refer to other countries within the grantee's proposed programme or other SRoL countries supported by the MFA in other programmes? Is it also possible to leverage insights for policy influencing with additional countries not on the SRoL focus list?

As stated in chapter 1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.2), the centrally managed SRoL budget is used to support programmes beyond the individual country level; should preferably span multiple years; have a larger budget; and lead to outcomes that significantly influence regional and/or international policy. These programmes have more time to achieve impact in the broader thematic area and thus increase knowledge of thematic issues and implementation methods in fragile and conflict-affected states.

This means that the outcomes of the proposed activities under the Contributing to Peaceful and Safe Societies grant programme – and specifically the insights gained and knowledge build – should also be applicable to the applicant’s engagement in the field of SRoL outside of the proposed grant programme. Hence, it is possible to leverage insights for policy influencing with additional countries not on the Dutch SRoL focus list. However, applicants are not allowed to use grant funding for policy influencing activities outside of the Dutch SRoL focus countries.

32. Are there any preferences for multi-country or multi-partner proposals (possibly a mix of CSO and UN agency with the UN agency as the lead implementer)?

No. Applicants are required to submit a proposal that covers multiple countries, as stated in section 3.2 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.6) – which makes clear that the proposed adaptive, locally led programming activities should be implemented in no fewer than two and no more than four SRoL focus countries. The requirement of no more than four SRoL focus countries for adaptive, locally led programming activities does not apply for applications that focus entirely (i.e., 100% of the requested grant funding) on conflict mediation, because it is difficult to predict where and when the need for conflict mediation will arise. The requirement of no less than two SRoL focus countries does continue to apply.

In addition, as explained under Q2 above, and as stated in threshold criterion D.2 of the Grant Policy Framework, the applicant needs to submit the application as an independent applicant. Applicants may engage third parties for the implementation of the activity, but it is the individual applicant that needs to meet the different threshold and quality criteria.

Finally, only internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) – in line with the definition provided in the Grant Policy Framework (p.i) – are eligible for a grant.

33. In section 12.3 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.17) it is stated that the MFA will contract a learning partner beyond the scope of the grant framework to support the Ministry in its own monitoring, evaluation and learning objectives for the grant programme. Is there a Call for Proposals or Terms of Reference available for this assignment? And if not, when will this be publicly available?

As stated in footnote 21 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.17), this contract will be publicly tendered through Rijksinkoopsamenwerking. The tendering process is a closed procedure consisting of two phases: 1) Selection Phase; and 2) Tender Phase. The Selection Phase entails that any interested Economic Operator can submit a Request to Participate after publication of the notice – which is expected to take place by mid-December 2023. Those Economic Operators that are selected as a result of this Selection Phase, will be invited (up to a maximum of five Economic Operators) to submit an application in the Tender Phase. The entire tender process is expected to be finalized by early July 2024.

Financial

34. We understand that applications from alliances are not eligible, yet there is a requirement that 60% of the funds be allocated to local partners in the countries where the activities are implemented. Could you kindly elucidate how this is applied? Specifically, is it expected that the main applicant, who meets the threshold criteria, will subcontract funds from the grant to local partner organisations for in-country implementation? Is it possible to form subcontracts or partnerships with entities outside of the countries where our activities are planned, or is this prohibited under the framework?

There is no requirement that 60% of the funds be allocated to local partners in the countries where the activities are implemented.

With reference to Q2 above, applicants may engage third parties for the implementation of the activity. This can include sub-granting financial means to a different entity (either local or international) as part of the activities of the programme, and can include sub-contracting contractors for technical delivery concerning the implementation of specific aspects of the programme. However, it is the individual applicant that needs to meet the different threshold and quality criteria, and we only look at the individual applicant when we assess the proposal. An applicant can list third parties in their applications. But it needs to make sure that the threshold criteria and especially the quality criteria are responded to thoroughly – including those on inclusive and equal partnerships, and locally led programming. For this, applicants may want to indicate how they would do sub-granting and sub-contracting, but we are not going to assess the sub-grantees and sub-contractors themselves.

35. Does the remuneration limit for management and board members also apply to sub-applicants/sub grantees? 

No, they only apply to the applicant, so only the applicant will be assessed on this criterion. Please note that a co-application is not allowed. The applicant needs to submit the application as an independent applicant. Please refer to Q2 above.

36. How are you expecting to see the budget split between policy influencing (25-40%) and country programming (60-70%) since it doesn't seem to be split in the budget? Can you confirm that policy influencing can also be combined with in-country programming?

The budget split between evidence-based policy influencing and country-level adaptive, locally led programming should be made clear in the second sheet included in ‘Appendix 4.vi Model budget format Excel’ (Model budget by result).

Policy influencing can take place in country and hence can at that level be seen as part of country-level adaptive, locally led programming if that fits within the intervention strategy/strategies as presented by the applicant.

37. How are national and (international) advocacy separated technically? If a NATO specialist working on international advocacy for PoC spends 3 months of the year on activities with the Iraqi government and NATO Mission in Iraq (NMI), do the costs of these three months fall within national or international?

The Ministry does not request a specification of policy influencing activities divided into the level of policy influencing (i.e., local, national, regional and/or international). Refer to the second sheet included in ‘Appendix 4.vi Model budget format Excel’ (Model budget by result).

38. ‘Appendix 4.vi Guide to Model Budget Nov 2023’, section 3.1.1.A (Staff costs in respect of non-local employees (including seconded staff)) states that this category includes all costs in respect of staff – both head office and seconded staff – that can be demonstrably attributed – either fully or in part – to a MFA-funded activity. Can it be confirmed that all costs that can be demonstrably attributed to a MFA activity are allowed? Including for example time (salary costs) of management visiting an activity in a focus country, or time (salary costs) spent on the financial report by finance staff. And that these costs fall under the category "C. Programme activity costs, including project management costs"?

Yes, this is confirmed.

39. ‘Appendix 4.vi Guide to Model Budget Nov 2023’, section 3.1.2. (Other direct programme costs) states that project office costs are costs incurred by a local country office. What is the definition of a "local country office"? Can a network regional secretariat, represented by an independent local organisation, be viewed as the local country office? The role of that regional secretariat is to serve as the primary point of contact for the global network in a designated region. Its focus lies in strengthening the regional network activities, engaging in advocacy efforts, developing and monitoring regional plans, and supporting fundraising efforts among others. 

Yes, a network regional secretariat as described can be viewed as a local country office.

40. Is the envisaged budget for MEL supposed to also cover network learning and adaptation? 

Provided the network learning and adaptation is part of the proposed programme activities, the costs related to this can be covered out the grant funding. The staff costs related to this should be covered out of the budget category ‘I. Direct staff costs applicant’ as included in ‘Appendix 4.vi Model budget format Excel’ and explained in ‘Appendix 4.vi Guide to Model Budget Nov 2023’ section 3.1.1. Other direct costs related to this should be included in budget line D.2 under ‘II. Other direct programme costs’ in ‘Appendix 4.vi Model budget format Excel’ with reference to the explanation provided in ‘Appendix 4.vi Guide to Model Budget Nov 2023’ section 3.1.2.D.2.

41. Do we understand correctly from 'Appendix 4vi Guide to Model Budget', that all direct and indirect costs of local partners must be shared within a 15% allocation (i.e. section IV of Table i on page 3), that also includes our organisational ICR and the 4% contingency? Or rather, are direct partner costs included in sections I and II of Table i on page 3? Is there anywhere else in the budget where we can include local partner costs (with the exception of their office costs)?

All local third partner costs should be included under category VI.A. Both direct and relevant (!) indirect local third partner costs may be entered and form integral part of the applicant's budget. The applicant’s indirect cost rate (ICR) may not be chosen randomly, but follows from a thorough mapping process of the applicant’s ledger accounts. Subsequently the applicant’s ICR can be entered in the Excel budget (see category IV of the model budget) which automatically calculates the total amount of indirect costs, by multiplying the ICR with the applicant’s direct costs.

42. Could you confirm our reading of chapter 7 of the Grant Policy Framework: does this mean that core costs are not eligible, apart from those directly necessary to carry out the described grant activities?

Please refer to 'Appendix 4vi Guide to Model Budget'. A minimum of 85% of the total expenses must be related to direct costs. I.e., costs (e.g., hours worked or equipment) that can clearly and demonstrably be attributed – either fully or in part – to the MFA-funded activities. A maximum of 15% may be spent on costs indirectly related to the implementation of the activities. E.g., costs of support staff, insurance, IT-licenses or heating costs. An extensive list of allowable direct and indirect costs is included in 'Appendix 4vi Guide to Model Budget'.

43. The grant disbursement section (section 12.2 of the Grant Policy Framework) states that 95% of the grant will be paid in annual instalments. Can you confirm whether this subsidy will provide 95% of the requested budget (with co-funding required) or if the final 5% will be paid upon completion of the grant?

The final 5% of the grant awarded will be paid upon completion of the grant, on the basis of a final reporting resulting in a final payment request submitted to the MFA.
44. Are we expected to add further rows with additional details to the 3 budget template sheets provided in ‘Appendix 4.vi Model budget format Excel’ (for instance, further detailing the breakdown of direct and indirect costs of local partners under VI.A)? Or should the templates be completed only at the summary level as currently presented?

Applicants are not allowed to add further rows to the model budget format. The templates should be completed only at the summary level as currently presented, accompanied by the narrative explanation requested in 'Appendix 4vi Guide to Model Budget', ‘Appendix 4.vi Model budget format Excel’ and all underlying PxQ-calculations of Sheet 1 of the Excel version of the Model Budget.

45. If we propose beginning the programme on 1 April 2024, would the first year's budget and planning refer to a total of 9 months, or is the requirement to provide an initial 12-month budget, regardless of the start date?

Applicants are requested to provide an initial 12-month budget, regardless of the start date of the activities.

46. For the more detailed budget required for year 1, do we need to provide the budget narrative and PxQ calculations using our own templates?

Applicants can use their own templates to provide the budget narrative and PxQ calculations, as long as these templates provide insight in the information required (as indicated in 'Appendix 4vi Guide to Model Budget'). Refer to Q44: the applicant also must submit all underlying PxQ-calculations of Sheet 1 of the Excel version of the Model Budget.

----- Updated as of 4 December ----

Eligibility

47. Under criterion D.3 of section 10.2.1 in the Grant Policy Framework, it is stated that "At least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme". How does the MFA assess whether a project implemented by an organisation is related to policy themes of the grant programme?

Applicants are asked to fill out the table under criterion D.3 in Appendix 1 ‘Application form Contributing to peaceful and safe societies’. This information will be cross-checked by the Ministry on the basis of the annual accounts and/or financial statements covering the past three years (2020, 2021, 2022) which the applicant is required to submit with its application. Please also refer to chapter 9 of the Grant Policy Framework.

48. Regarding criterion D.3 "At least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme": is this PER YEAR or THESE THREE YEARS IN TOTAL? 

This is per year – i.e., at least 60% of the applicant’s average annual expenditures PER YEAR in the period 2020-2020 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme.

49. Refer to criterion D.3: At least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme: security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation. If we choose 1 theme, can our threshold criteria above still include BOTH themes?

Yes. Refer also to Q47 above.

50. Should the applying organisation prove to be registered in all countries included in the proposal?

No. The grant programme aims to support internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) that possess legal personality under civil law in the country where they are legally registered. This means that applicants do not have to be registered in the countries where they intend to undertake activities under the grant programme in order to be eligible for grant funding (leaving aside any requirements of the governments of countries where the applicant proposes to work; it is up to the applicant to know and meet such requirements if needed to be able to implement proposed activities).

51. Could you kindly provide clarification on the methodology employed to determine the maximum salary caps for various countries/regions? Specifically, how do you anticipate that highly specialized organizations engaged in policy and mediation work will align their executive directors' salaries with the threshold of 205,000 EUR in (Northern) Europe?

As stated in Appendix 3 to the Grant Policy Framework (Maximum remuneration 2023),  legal entities that (wish to) receive a grant charged to the state budget of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation of the Netherlands are subject to the requirement of a maximum remuneration for their directors and managers. This requirement applies to all grants provided out of the Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation budget.

The maximum remuneration is linked to the country of establishment (registered office) of the applicant organisation and varies per country. For organisations established in the Netherlands and other EU member states, the maximum corresponds to the reduced Top Incomes (Standardisation) Act (WNT) for the Development Cooperation sector.

52. Can a joint Government and CSOs Peace Network from Somalia apply for this grant?

For who is eligible for a grant, please refer to criteria D.1 until D.7 concerning the applicant in the Grant Policy Framework, which need to be met. We underline once more that only civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) as defined on p.i of the Grant Policy Framework are eligible for a grant, and that, as stated in section 5.1 of the Grant Policy Framework, local and other authorities, intergovernmental organisations and organisations in which the government is the sole or majority shareholder are not eligible for funding. We also underline that civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) as defined on p.i of the Grant Policy Framework have to be internationally operating – in the sense that they conduct activities in multiple countries (refer to threshold criterion D.1).

In addition, we refer to threshold criterion D.2 that the applicant needs to submit the application as an independent applicant, not on behalf of an alliance or consortium. As explained under Q2 above, applicants may engage third parties for the implementation of the activity. However, it is the individual applicant that needs to meet the different threshold and quality criteria, and we only look at the individual applicant when we assess the proposal.

53. Can local Iraqi organisations apply directly for this grant?

Refer to Q52 above. Only if a single local Iraqi organisation meets threshold criteria D.1 until D.7 concerning the applicant in the Grant Policy Framework, it can be eligible for funding. We underline that only internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) as defined on p.i of the Grant Policy Framework – in the sense that they conduct activities in multiple countries (refer to threshold criterion D.1) – are eligible for funding.

54. Is a public capacity building centre (which works in policy development, and convening as well) affiliated to an African MFA eligible for funding? Bearing in mind that the centre is independent financially and administratively (we fund all our activities via international partners through UNDP).

Refer to Q52 above. Only if the public capacity building centre meets threshold criteria D.1 until D.7 concerning the applicant in the Grant Policy Framework, it can be eligible for funding. We underline once more that only civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) as defined on p.i of the Grant Policy Framework and that possess legal entity under civil law are eligible for a grant. And that, as stated in section 5.1 of the Grant Policy Framework, local and other authorities, intergovernmental organisations and organisations in which the government is the sole or majority shareholder are not eligible for funding.

55. Does an INGO focusing on human rights and free press/ focusing on security and safety and using the media for peace, and focus also on lobby/ advocacy and policy, qualify for funding? (Not a humanitarian or development organisation)

Refer to Q1 and Q4 above and threshold criteria D.1 until D.7, especially D.3. Section 5.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.8) states that only organisations whose activities are explicitly focused on security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation, are eligible for grant funding. This means that we aim to support organisations that work directly on security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation – not organisations that indirectly work on these policy themes. The Ministry has for this reason chosen to include threshold criterion D.3 (“At least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme: security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation”) to ensure that only specialised organisations are eligible for funding.

56. Under conditions of eligibility section 5.1 it states : Not eligible: "Organisations whose activities revolve primarily around development cooperation in a broader sense, such as poverty alleviation or the promotion of basic services such as health, education, housing or water, as well as organisations whose activities revolve primarily around humanitarian assistance." Would a human rights, media development and advocacy organization qualify (if all other conditions are met, including criterion D.3 of 60% of applicants average expenditure in 2020-2022 being related to the policy themes in this grant programme)?

Refer to Q55 above.

57. According to the grant documents, proposed activities should build on the applicant's existing programming and networks in those countries. Activities in countries where this is not the case are not eligible for funding. How is "existing programming" defined? What extent of existing programming is expected?

Applicants have to show that the activities that they propose to undertake in a specific SRoL focus country are linked to (and build upon) activities that the applicant has undertaken in that same country in previous years – allowing for the applicant to work with an existing network of local partners and stakeholders, building on existing knowledge of the local context in which the applicant will operate, and proving that the applicant does not start anew in the proposed target country.

58. Can existing activities be scaled up from one zone to another, for example from Goma to Ituri or Kasai in the case of the DRC?

Yes, that is correct. Please note however that, with a view to article 9 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Grant Decree, it needs to be clear that the activities for which a grant is requested have not yet started at the moment the application is submitted.

Procedural

59. The Excel sheet contained in the "Appendix 1: Application form Contributing to peaceful and safe societies" Excel A-F 19 -156: the cells are blacked out and not changeable. Is it possible to receive the sheet in another format? Or any advice on how to resolve the issue?

As stated in cell A-F 11 of the application form, applicants are requested to fill out the introductory questions listed in A-F 12-16 to assess whether their organisation might be eligible to apply. This serves as a check to prevent organisations from submitting an application that has no chance to succeed. Only when the applicant has ticked the relevant boxes for his organisation and appears to be eligible to apply, the remaining cells in the application form will become visible. We urge applicants to answer the introductory questions truthfully and as such seriously consider whether or not they may be eligible for funding under this grant programme – and save themselves a considerable amount of work, knowing they will not pass the threshold test as it will be conducted by the Ministry.

60. Retroactivity: can you please confirm that if our start date is 1 January 2024 and we are only informed a few months after (for example 1 May) that we have won the tender, that the costs incurred on the project as of 1 January 2024 are eligible under the grant?

Yes, this is confirmed. However, we underline that the risks of starting activities prior to receiving the final confirmation that a grant is rewarded lies fully with the applicant organisation. If a grant is not rewarded and the applicant has incurred costs because activities were already started, these costs will not be covered by the Ministry.

61. Will this be the sole opportunity to work on "conflict transformation" or will this topic possibly reoccur in another/different calls for proposal of the Dutch MFA?

The topic could possibly reoccur in other/different calls for proposals of the Dutch MFA, but it is not possible at this point in time to either confirm or deny this – simply because at this point, we do not know.

62. Could you confirm if the grant is/will not be affected by the current Dutch suspension of other grants in Uganda as a priority country?

At this moment, the Netherlands has not suspended any support to civil society organisations, with no indication that this will change in the immediate future.

Content and scope of the grant

63. Can you include people from the broader group of targeted countries as participants of regional policy advocacy conversations/events/training that are not coming from the organisation`s identified countries of project implementation?

Yes, as long as that participation is relevant to the objectives set for the identified country of project implementation – and as long as that participation is part of / logically linked to the proposed intervention strategy.

64. Is it possible to review and change our focus countries as contexts and needs shift over time? Can you phase out from a specific implementation country after say 4 years, considering that you remain implementing in the minimum set countries of implementation?

Refer to Q27 above.

65. Could there from your end be adjustments to the focus SRoL countries in the course of the next 8 years?

Refer to Q26 above.

66. How do you see the link between the two policy priorities central to the grant programme (i.e., security for persons and communities, and peacebuilding and conflict mediation)?

Refer to the Ministry’s SRoL Theory of Change (Theory of Change - Security and Rule of Law (English, January 2023) | Publication | Government.nl), which explains how the two policy priorities are linked under the overarching SRoL policy objective to contribute to building peaceful, just and inclusive societies in fragile states.

67. Refer to criterion D.4: We read the definition of security for persons that the MFA uses and wonder if the MFA can confirm that our interpretation that (child) protection and MHPSS can indeed be included under the security pillar of the call and as part of the track record is correct?

Refer to the Ministry’s SRoL Theory of Change (Theory of Change - Security and Rule of Law (English, January 2023) | Publication | Government.nl), which explains what we understand to be part of the policy theme of security for persons and communities. Please note that we have not included child protection as a specific line of work for the Ministry to focus on.

68. Regarding the role of the embassies in the implementation of the SRoL, it is mentioned: “Therefore, the Netherlands has set a goal of allocating at least two-thirds of the available SRoL budget to Dutch embassies in SRoL focus countries. The embassies support the programming of this budget to achieve country-specific results.” Is this a different funding mechanism outside of this call (published by the embassies themselves, for instance)? Could you please clarify the role of the embassies throughout the programme? Should we consider them as potential actors/partners when designing the programme?

The budget that is allocated to the Dutch embassies in SRoL focus countries falls outside of the scope of the Contributing to Peaceful and Safe Societies grant programme. The embassies decide how they spend that budget. As this grant programme is centrally managed, the embassies do not have an administrative/management role in the programme. The Ministry will discuss with the applicants that will be rewarded a grant and the relevant embassies how embassies can best be kept informed of activities that will be undertaken in-country. In addition, embassies could be invited to participate in the proposed policy influencing elements of programmes, but the extent of the embassies’ engagement will have to be discussed and decided upon on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind the different responsibilities of the grant receiving organisation and the Ministry as grant giving authority.

69. Is the NL MFA interested in playing an active role in the policy influencing element of the proposed programmes? (e.g., availing its own network, its embassies being involved in disseminating evidence, etc.)

To a certain extent. The Ministry will be entering into eight-year partnerships in which we aim to engage with partners working on the policy themes of security for persons and communities, and peacebuilding and conflict mediation, in fragile and conflict-affected settings (with emphasis on applying a locally led, adaptive programming approach – as well as inclusivity, conflict sensitivity and alignment/coordination). As explained in chapter 1 of the Grant Policy Framework, this is in line with various evaluations of our work in fragile areas, which underline that we need to re-think how we are engaging in these areas if we want to increase the relevance and effectiveness of our efforts. From this perspective, it will be relevant for the Ministry to actively engage in policy influencing efforts undertaken under the grant programme. The extent of the Ministry’s engagement will have to be discussed and decided upon on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind the different responsibilities of the grant receiving organisation and the Ministry as grant giving authority.

70. Understanding that the call is focusing on working with communities, does working with formal justice sector institutions through joint initiatives with communities fall within the scope of the grant programme?

Working with formal institutions through joint initiatives with communities could fall within the scope of the grant programme – provided that these activities form an integral part of a programme that explicitly focuses on security for persons and communities, or peacebuilding and conflict mediation (as defined in section 2.2.1 of the Grant Policy Framework). Refer to threshold criterion D.8: The activities for which grant funding is requested explicitly target one of the following two SRoL policy themes: either security for persons and communities, or peacebuilding and conflict mediation.

71. Can you confirm if you're only looking to fund civilian protection work or also broader areas of CS such as community safety forums, building trust between security actors and communities, SALW, etc.?

Refer to Q23 above.

72. We understand that policy influencing entails influencing local, national, regional and international policy makers, but do you have anything more specific in mind? Any specific expectations regarding what constitutes policy influencing.

No. It is up to the applicants to explain how they see policy influencing as part of their intervention strategy. Applicants have to explain how they will effectively influence the agenda-setting and/or outcome of policy processes (at the local, national, regional and/or international level) relevant to the chosen policy theme (security for persons and communities, or peacebuilding and conflict mediation); and they have to explain how the proposed programme will put into practice a learning loop between local, national, regional and international policy influencing on the one hand, and adaptive, locally led programming on the other (refer to substantive criteria Q.8 and Q.9). Refer also to threshold criterion D.3: a) The activities for which grant funding is requested consist of two components: (i) evidence-based policy influencing, and (ii) country-level adaptive, locally-led programming; b) these components will be connected by integrating a learning loop.

73. How do you explain the Ministry's commitment to Triple Nexus while using criteria that exclude organisations who are involved in peacebuilding and humanitarian aid, or peacebuilding and development aid from this call and also organisations that address root causes of conflicts by combining peacebuilding interventions with for example livelihoods interventions?

Refer to Q1 and Q4 above. With this specific line of funding, the Ministry aims to support organisations that specialise in security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation. Organisations that have activities that are related to other policy themes (including Triple Nexus) can still be eligible for grant funding, as long as they meet the requirement listed in threshold criterion D.3. In addition, organisations that specialise in security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation, could still be working on and contributing to the Triple Nexus.

74. In the Grant Policy Framework, section 3.2 Focus countries, it is said in the last paragraph that in the area of conflict mediation, the requirement of no less than two SRoL focus countries does not apply. Please, can you clarify?

This is not correct. The Grant Policy Framework states (pp.6-7): “The proposed adaptive, locally led programming activities should be implemented in no fewer than two and no more than four SRoL focus countries. Exception to the requirement of no more than four SRoL focus countries for adaptive, locally led programming activities: For applications that focus entirely (i.e., 100% of the requested grant funding) on the area of conflict mediation under the peacebuilding and conflict mediation policy theme, a maximum of SRoL focus countries does not apply. The requirement of no less than two SRoL focus countries does continue to apply. This exception was made because it is difficult to predict where and when the need for conflict mediation will arise.”

75. Can conflict resolution be supported under the security for persons and communities stream, given that community security incudes supporting non-violent conflict resolution mechanisms in order to enhance people's security?

As stated in section 2.2.1 of the Grant Policy Framework, security for persons and communities programmes include: a) community security programmes, including efforts to enhance the interface between demand for, and supply of, security (through, for example, strengthening protection of civilians policy and practice); and b) programmes aimed at strengthening personal and community conflict management behaviour and mechanisms (through, for example, unarmed civilian protection). For both types of programmes, the Netherlands is committed to the promotion of nonviolent conflict resolution pathways and infrastructures.

76. What do you anticipate might be the impact of the recent elections in the Netherlands on this Call for Proposals?

We cannot answer this question, because we do not know. For now, we continue with the tender and the plans for subsequent programming as foreseen. In case the elections and the formation of a new government would have a negative consequence for awarded grants, this will be dealt with in accordance with the guarantees Dutch administrative law offers in such circumstances.

77. Do you also have a ToC for the peacebuilding/mediation policy area?

No. Peacebuilding and mediation are integral elements of the SRoL ToC (Theory of Change - Security and Rule of Law (English, January 2023) | Publication | Government.nl).

Financial

78. We are required to allocate all of our budget costs to be contributing to either policy or programming. To which of these areas should we allocate indirect costs such as the ICR line or the contingency line? Can we divide these proportionately as it is not easy to link them?

Refer to Q41. The applicant’s indirect cost rate (ICR) may not be chosen randomly, but follows from a thorough mapping process of the applicant’s ledger accounts. The ICR thus determined can be entered in the Excel budget (see category IV of the model budget). Subsequently the indirect costs are automatically calculated. This is done by multiplying the applicant’s ICR with its direct costs for that particular year (sheet 1) or result area (sheet 2).

Including costs for contingency is not compulsory. It is up to the applicant to decide to include them or not. If he does, the applicant may chose its own division over year or result, by entering an amount in category VIII. Please not that this amount may not exceed the maximum of 4% of that particular year (sheet 1) or result area (sheet 2).

79. How flexible are we in altering the indicated budget for subsequent years between the components and overall (without changing the total for 8 years)? Can unspent funds be transferred from one year to the next?

As stated on p.13 of Appendix VI Guide to model budget: “In the light of the activities’ progress and new circumstances, annually adjustments within budgets may be made. Provided MFA’s explicit permission has been obtained. The proposal to adjust the budget must be compatible with the ministry’s intended results and acceptable in the light of the activity’s circumstances.” We also refer to chapter 8, point viii of the Grant Policy Framework (p.11), which states: “The grant award decision will determine the extent to which applicants have room to adjust the budget during the grant period to facilitate adaptive programming. Partner organisations will thus be able to easily and quickly adjust their programming if unforeseen obstacles or opportunities arise during the eight-year implementation period.”

80. You emphasise flexibility and longer-term support and we are wondering how that is reflected in budget allocations specifically for organisations working on conflict mediation where there sometimes are lulls or revivals of conflict. Is there appreciation for this and room for flexibility?

Yes. Refer to Q79 above.

81. You mention budget flexibility – in the interest of sustainability and transitioning activities over to communities towards the end of the 8 years, are we able to plan significantly more activities/costs at the start of the 8 years, or do you expect to see a more equal budget over the years?

The applicant can decide how it wishes to divide the budget over the eight years. There is no requirement that this division has to be equal per year.

82. There is no reference to a match funding requirement. Can the activities be 100% funded by the Dutch MFA?

Yes, that is correct.

83. Research and Development is listed as a non-allowable cost under section 3.3 of Appendix VI Guide to model budget. Can you define these terms for us? Can we assume that programmatic research that contributes to policy recommendations is eligible? Can research and development be included as part of the evidence based policy influencing?

This is a mistake made by the Ministry. Please note that section 3.3 of Appendix VI Guide to model budget has been adjusted and that the reference to “Research and Development” has been taken out of the document. Programmatic research that contributes to evidence-based policy influencing is indeed eligible, as is other research as long as it’s an integral part of the proposed intervention strategy and relevant in terms of achieving the proposed objectives.

----- Updated as of 8 December ----

Eligibility

84. Why are alliances not allowed? Alliances could help to bring together organizations with different (peacebuilding) expertise making the interventions more effective.

Refer to Q4 above. With this specific line of funding, the Ministry aims to support individual organisations that specialise in security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation. We do not allow for alliances or consortia as we want to make sure that the individual applicant meets all the different threshold and quality criteria by itself – and not by bringing in experience and expertise of other organisations. As explained under Q2 above, applicants may engage third parties for the implementation of the activity and as such bring in additional expertise to make the planned interventions more effective.

85. Concerning ‘Appendix 4i Track record format’: would projects executed by our organisation but contractually managed by another entity be deemed acceptable as project references?

Yes, projects executed by the applicant but contractually managed by another entity are acceptable as project references in the track record. Please note that we ask applicants to indicate the % of the budget implemented by the applicant.

86. Concerning ‘Appendix 4i Track record format’: would projects implemented by the applicant’s sister organisation (a separate legal entity that is not applying) be eligible to include?

No. Refer to Q2 above: applicants need to submit the application as an independent applicant, and it is the individual applicant that needs to meet the different threshold and quality criteria. Therefore, only project references that have been implemented by the applicant itself are eligible.

87. Concerning ‘Appendix 4i Track record format’: The template asks for % of budget implemented by applicant, does that mean we should deduct the amount transferred to partners to implement parts of the project and calculate the percentage of budget used directly by our organisation?

Yes, that is correct.

88. Our organisation has gone through a transition process. For the track record, can we include organisation wide experiences from all parts of our organisation family, including separate legal entities (but still part of the same umbrella organisation)? Do we need to distinguish between the entities in the track record?

Only internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) that possess legal personality under civil law are eligible for a grant (see Grant Policy Framework, p.i, and threshold criterion D.1). And applicants need to submit the application as an independent applicant, as stated in threshold criterion D.2 of the Grant Policy Framework. As a consequence, all criteria are applicable to the applying individual legal person. Therefore, you cannot include experiences from other legal entities in your track record – even if they are part of the same umbrella organisation.

89. For criterion D.3 (At least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme: security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation): Is it possible to include all sorts of programming under these expenditures as long as they are related to one of the policy themes? So both policy influencing as well as implementation of service delivery, training etc.?

Yes, applicants are allowed to include all expenditures related to the policy themes central to the grant programme.

90. Can local or national CSOs/NGOs – that are not registered in the Netherlands or Europe – apply on their own as a lead organization, or do they need a foreign / INGO to partner with? 

Refer to Q52 and Q53 above. Local or national CSOs/NGOs can apply for grant funding, but they are only eligible for funding if they meet and show they do, threshold criteria D.1 until D.7 concerning the applicant in the Grant Policy Framework. We underline that only internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) as defined on p.i of the Grant Policy Framework – in the sense that they conduct activities in multiple countries (refer to threshold criterion D.1) – are eligible for funding.

Local or national CSOs / NGOs that meet threshold criteria D.1 until D.7 are not required to partner with a foreign / INGO. Here, we refer once more to threshold criterion D.2 that the applicant needs to submit the application as an independent applicant, not on behalf of an alliance or consortium. As explained under Q2 above, applicants may engage third parties for the implementation of the activity. However, it is the individual applicant that needs to meet the different threshold and quality criteria, and we only look at the individual applicant when we assess the proposal.

91. We understand that applicants are required to submit for at least two and at most four countries that are included in the list of Dutch SRoL focus countries. Our programmes from our country office here cover Kenya and Somalia, but as Kenya is not one of the focus countries, this would mean combining Somalia with another country where we operate within the Horn – South Sudan or Uganda. In a nutshell, would this be the case? Was there an exception given to this during last week's information session?

No exception was given to this requirement during the online information session. We confirm that Kenya is not one of the Dutch SRoL focus countries. Refer to threshold criteria D.14 and D.15.

92. If applying for the peacebuilding policy theme, is it permissible to target more than four countries specifically for policy influencing activities while restricting programming activities to only four countries?

Yes. The requirement of implementing activities in no fewer than two and no more than four SRoL focus countries applies to the proposed country-level adaptive, locally led programming activities (refer to threshold criterion D.15). As stated in section 3.2 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.6),  the proposed local, national and regional policy influencing activities should target the SRoL focus countries. International policy influencing activities should build as much as possible on insights gained in SRoL focus countries. Refer to threshold criterion D.14. Refer also to Q30 above.

93. Since in paragraph 3.2 of the Grant policy Framework the text is slightly different from the text in the Application form (Appendix 4iii Programme proposal format) can you confirm that we can focus on only two or three countries or is it obligatory to deal with 4?

Refer to Q92 above. As stated in section 3.2 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.6), the proposed country-level adaptive, locally led programming activities have to take place in a minimum of two SRoL focus countries. Hence, applicants can choose to focus on only two or three countries (with a maximum of four countries).

94. Is a foundation (as defined under Swiss law) eligible to apply for this grant? As a Swiss foundation, we don’t meet foundation criteria in many other jurisdictions, so we want to check with you whether an organisation like ours could be eligible for this grant.

Overall, applicants are eligible for funding as long as they meet and show they do, threshold criterium D.1 until D.7. This may include non-Dutch organisations. Please note that applicants have to be internationally operating civil society organisations (CSOs/NGOs) as defined on p.i of the Grant Policy Framework – CSOs/NGOs meaning organisations have to possess legal personality under civil law and serve a public interest, neither established by a public authority nor connected to a public authority either de facto or under its constitution, or which after its establishment by a public authority has become fully autonomous; internationally operating meaning, as defined on p.i of the Grant Policy Framework, that they conduct activities in multiple countries (refer to threshold criterion D.1). Refer also to Q10 above, where we explain that the applicant has to be a not-for-profit organisation – which means the applicant should be able to demonstrate that it has not making financial profit as an aim. This should be evidenced by the constitution and financial statements.

95. Our organisation is not eligible for funding due to threshold criterion D.3 (i.e., at least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme). However, we host the coordination secretariat of a global policy and advocacy network of civil society organisations that focuses in its entirety on one of the policy themes central to this grant programme. The network does not have a separate legal identity; this is provided by the legal status of our organisation as host. Given this situation, how can we make sure the network is eligible to apply in this tender process?

The network is not eligible for funding as it does not have a separate legal identity. Only internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) that possess legal personality under civil law are eligible for a grant (see Grant Policy Framework, p.i, and threshold criterion D.1). As the host organisation does not meet threshold criterium D.3 it cannot apply for funding on behalf of the network.

Procedural

96. Will footnotes be included in the wordcount?

No, footnotes will not be included in the wordcount. We do note however that the text relevant for assessing the proposal has to be included in the main text of the various documents, not in the footnotes. Footnotes are meant to include references to relevant sources, citations and explanatory information that would disrupt the flow of the main text.

97. Is it allowable to submit as an optional appendix a bibliography or endnotes that includes all citations throughout the proposal? If not, are we required to provide full citations of any sources within each section? Or, alternatively, is author/year acceptable within each section (so that citations do not take up too much space in maximum word counts) as long as we have on hand a bibliography or endnotes, in the event that the MFA has a question about a particular source cited?

Refer to Q96 above. Citations should be included in the footnotes and will not be included in the wordcount.

98. Is there a preferred referencing system? 

No, there is no preferred referencing system. Refer to Q96 and Q97 above.

99. We are required to provide a graphic representation of our Theory of Change. Could you please advise if this will count towards the word count for this section? 

No, text included in the graphic representation of the Theory of Change is not included in the word count for the section on the Theory of Change.

100. Do we understand correctly that an ORIA is not yet necessary at this stage (before the Dec.21^st deadline)? 

Yes. As stated in section 10.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.13), only applicants that satisfy all threshold criteria are invited by the Ministry to submit an Organisational Risk and Integrity Assessment (ORIA), an ORIA update form, or an ORIA light form. The invitation to submit an ORIA will explain which organisation is required to provide what information.

101. Do we demonstrate that we adopt and apply an integrity policy only upon invitation after the first threshold assessment?

Yes, this is included in the ORIA assessment. Refer to Q100 above.

102. We see in both the guidelines (section 8 and Annex 4ii) that in the showcases, we should outline experience with policy influencing activities relevant to the policy theme for which the applicant is requesting funding (security for persons and communities, or peacebuilding and conflict mediation). This experience must be based on insights gained from implementing adaptive and locally led development programming in fragile and conflict-affected states (preferably in the SRoL focus countries). The showcases must also highlight the applicant’s experience in applying a learning loop, illustrating their main achievements and lessons learned in this area.
Could you please clarify if each 1.500w response should focus on our experience in just one SRoL country? Or can we draw on multiple examples to demonstrate different aspects from our experience in various SRoL countries? 

With showcase we mean an example of a programme or project that has been undertaken by the applicant, that highlights the applicant’s experience as described in section 8.iv of the Grant Policy Framework (p.9) and in Appendix 4ii Showcases format. Within a showcase one can highlight a combination of initiatives at different levels and within different countries, as long as these are part of a common objective and broader intervention.

103. In Appendix 4.v to the Contributing to Peaceful and Safe Societies 2024-2031 grant programme it says: "Applicants should present a risk analysis and risk strategy relevant to the proposed programme. The risk strategy should follow logically from the risk analysis, problem analysis and context analysis presented, and be appropriate to adaptive, locally led programming." Please could you confirm that, in order to satisfy this requirement, we only need to provide (as indicated in Appendix 4.v) introductory text on both contextual and programme risks, and then complete the tables, and that we don't also need to provide a separate 'risk strategy' (for which there is no template or guidance).

Yes, this is confirmed.

104. While we fully understand and appreciate the importance of adhering to set deadlines, we find ourselves in a unique situation with the current application cycle due to the exceptionally short timeframe and its proximity to the upcoming Christmas holidays. The combination of the small window of time and the holiday season poses a significant challenge for us to prepare and submit a comprehensive application. To ensure the highest quality and collaborative nature of our application, we kindly request an extension to the grant application deadline. We propose an extension until the 5th of January at the latest. Alternatively, if an earlier date is more convenient for the review team, we are open to accommodating their schedule.

As stated in section 9 of the Grant Policy Framework, applications may be submitted until 21 December 2023 at 11:59 am CET at the latest. Applications submitted after the date and time stated above will be rejected. To ensure a level playing field for all applicants, the deadline for applications cannot and therefore will not be extended for individual applicants.

Content and scope of the grant

105. The information call confirmed that the policy framework is exclusively focused on 3.2 Peacebuilding of the SRoL Theory of Change. However, at the same time, the Netherlands is championing an integrated approach and recognizes how interlinked issues are for local communities. Are interventions combining peacebuilding with a MHPSS and livelihoods dimension admissible? Are interventions that aim at increasing the positive contributions to peace by local, national, and international actors through peace responsive approaches admissible?

A distinction should be made between the focus of the proposed interventions, and the institutional focus of the applicant organisations. As for the proposed interventions, refer to threshold criterion D.8: the activities for which grant funding is requested explicitly target one of the following two SRoL policy themes: either security for persons and communities, or peacebuilding and conflict mediation. Section 2.2.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (pp.3-4) describes what the Netherlands understands these policy themes to entail. Applicants have to make clear in their application how they see their proposed interventions align with this description.

As for the institutional focus of the applicant organisations, refer to Q1 and Q4 above and threshold criteria D.1 until D.7, especially D.3. Section 5.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.8) states that only organisations whose activities are explicitly focused on security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation, are eligible for grant funding. As explained in Q55 above, this means that we aim to support organisations that work directly on security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation – not organisations that indirectly work on these policy themes. The Ministry has for this reason chosen to include threshold criterion D.3 (“At least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme: security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation”) to ensure that only specialised organisations are eligible for funding.

106. For Policy area 2 Peacebuilding and conflict mediation, should activities be continuous in all project countries throughout the entire duration of the programme, or can there be a phased approach?

For both policy themes (security for persons and communities, and peacebuilding and conflict mediation), activities can take a phased approach. However, applicants have to make clear in their applications what such a phased approach would look like. Over the entire grant period, proposed activities have to meet the requirements of the Grant Policy Framework, specifically threshold criteria D.8 until D.17.

Financial

107. In threshold criterion D.6 it states that management needs to have 'gross remuneration' below a certain rate. Could you please clarify if remuneration is only based on salary, or if it includes salary AND allowances / benefits (such as travel allowances, child school fees, etc)?

Refer to ‘Appendix 1 Application Form Contributing to peaceful and safe societies’, explanatory note to D.6. Here it is stated that the total gross remuneration of individual managers and board members is formed by the sum of: a) the total of periodically paid salary, profit shares and bonuses; b) taxable fixed and variable expense allowances; and c) payments made at set times of year, such as holiday pay, thirteenth-month bonus, the employer’s share of pension contributions, etc.

108. Can you clarify what titles count as management for the gross remuneration question? How many managers are you expecting to have listed?

The gross renumeration threshold applies to individual management members and individual board members of any applicant and is not related to whether or not these costs are covered in the proposal budget, nor to whether these persons will be directly charged to the proposed programme. With ‘individual management member’ is meant a member of the management team or Board of Directors. So, the criterion needs to be applied to the manager(s), director(s) and board members of the organisation; it concerns the individual members of the management team and board who are solely or jointly responsible for the (daily management of the) entire organisation.

109. Regarding threshold criterion D.6,  other than filling out the table and sending an audited financial statement how do we show that this criterion is satisfied? What annual accounts do you expect to see that would show that this criterion is satisfied?  Are you looking at payroll ledger or Human resource contract for employment? Our financial statements do not discuss salary or hours worked. As a US based organisation we have differences in our audits systems and the way we operate and so the information included in our audits may not be  the same.

For most organisations the table in the application form and audited financial statements suffice to evidence that this criterion is met. Only in case the financial statements do not include a specification on remuneration or hours worked, the applicant may include an alternative source of information that proves that the gross remuneration criterion is met (e.g., payroll ledger or human resource contract for employment).

110. Our organisation is established as a not-for-profit foundation in Switzerland. We understand that under Annex 3 we therefore fall under B. Applicant established in the UK, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, the US or Canada and must comply with the corresponding Swiss remuneration cap. Form D.6 from the application documents requires us to specify the remuneration of the individual managers and board members of its organisation. Some of our managers and board members reside outside Switzerland. We understand that as a Swiss-based legal entity their remuneration must not exceed the Swiss cap. Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct. All criteria are applicable to the applying legal person. As a consequence, in relation to threshold criterion D.6 the country where the applying organisation is legally established determines the maximum remuneration applicable to the individual members of the management and board.

111. We see it says that Costs of support staff and indirect staff are part of overheads / indirect costs and cannot be attributed directly to the activities funded by MFA. This category mainly concerns: salary costs of management, finance, HR, IT, administration and other support staff; travel expenses if, unlike those described in section 3.1.C, they cannot be attributed to the activities being funded by MFA. In that case they may be charged as indirect costs in accordance with the organization’s applicable policy. Could you please clarify if finance staff (who will work to process any payments associated with the grant, as well as prepare financials for the report) and grant management staff (who will spend time preparing narrative reports) are categorised as direct costs?

Refer to Q38 above. As stated in ‘Appendix 4.vi Guide to Model Budget Nov 2023’, section 3.1.1.A (Staff costs in respect of non-local employees (including seconded staff)), all costs in respect of staff – both head office and seconded staff – that can be demonstrably attributed – either fully or in part – to a MFA-funded activity are allowed. Most likely Finance staff (processing grant associated payments and reports) and  grant management staff will be attributed in part.

112. Section 13 of the Grant Policy Framework refers to the administrative burden: what does this mean exactly? When preparing the budget, we operate under the assumption that we're one of the 50 organisations eligible for a grant. We factor in administrative expenses aimed at covering application costs, which we anticipate will be "reimbursed" and this amount cannot exceed 3.850.000 / 50 = EUR 77.000? Is that what it means? 

No. Section 13 is an informative section in which the minister explains that the administrative burden in relation to the grant policy framework has been kept on an legitimate level. It refers to the total costs 50 possible applicants would make to prepare their application for this programme. This total amount is estimated at EUR 3.85 million (= 50*77.000) which is seen as proportionate in relation to the total available means for awarding grants. Since no more than 10 applicants will be awarded and the MFA does not reimburse any costs made to prepare an application – granted or rejected – all preparation costs are considered ‘administrative burden’ under the Dutch legislation.

113. In ‘Appendix 4vi Model budget format Excel’ a budget for the first twelve months needs to be filled out. If we want to start the grant on 1 June 2024, can we use the same column for our budget of the first seven months and align the budgets for year 2, 3 etc with the calendar years 2025, 2026 etc?

Refer to Q45. Applicants are requested to provide an initial 12-month budget, irrespective of the start date of the activities. In other words, the first twelve months as well as the succeeding implementing years do not relate to the period 1 January to 31 December, but rather to 12-month periods following from the start date of the activities.

114. Instructions for budgeting state that a budget for the first twelve months should be drawn up, and further, that a forecast for the remainder of the project period should also be created. Since the first twelve month budget and the forecast are on the same budget template, what is the difference between the two?

Based on the adaptive nature of this programme we assume that a detailed and thorough budget may only be drawn up for a period of 12 months. Budgets for succeeding years are expected to be financial forecasts and therefore may be less accurate. During implementation the same approach will be used; with each annual plan for the upcoming year an accurate update of the budget is required, while for the remaining period estimates per year suffice.

As mentioned in the model budget a narrative explanation must be added to the budget by year. Additionally for the first twelve months underlying PxQ-calculations must be added. That is what differentiates the detailed budget and the forecast.

115. Which exchange rates we should use when working with different currencies?  You have provided Corporate Rates for each country. The document has a spot rate and corporate rate; which rate should we use?

Applicants have to use the corporate rates in Appendix 2.

116. Please describe the audit requirements for projects selected for funding.

An annual financial audit is obligatory. In general terms, the audits have to be carried out by an auditor who is registered on the AIA list of qualified accountants. All project related expenses (and possibly income) as well as the Indirect Cost Rate used by the applicant are audited.

117. Section 8.ii of the Grant Policy Framework (p.9) states that applicants have to submit their annual accounts and/or financial statements covering the past three years (2020, 2021, 2022), and the explanatory notes in ‘Appendix 1 Application Form Contributing to peaceful and safe societies’ state that annual accounts should include an unqualified audit opinion issued by a recognised auditor. Would you accept a non-audited annual account for 2022? Currently the account papers for 2022 are completed but our auditors will not have had time to finish the audit on deadline. (Please note that all our annual accounts are routinely audited, even though, as a small NGO, we don’t have any statutory obligation by law to have our annual account audited).

As included in explanatory note D.5 in ‘Appendix 1 Application Form Contributing to peaceful and safe societies’, the Ministry asks that annual accounts should include an unqualified audit opinion issued by a recognised auditor. If such an audit opinion cannot be submitted, non-audited statements have to be provided, together with an explanation as to why an audit opinion cannot be submitted.

118. What is the range of funding per year and the total amount for the whole duration of the grant programme?

Refer to section 4 of the Grant Policy Framework, and threshold criteria D.10, D.11 and D.12. The activities for which a grant is requested have a minimum duration of 91 months and a maximum duration of 96 months. Activities must commence no earlier than 1 January 2024, and no later than 1 June 2024, and must be completed by 31 December 2031. Applicants must apply for no less than €10 million and no more than €25 million in funding. There are no requirements in terms of a range of funding per year – that is up to the applicant to indicate in the budget submitted.

119. For participating with the learning partner, the Grant Policy Framework (section 12.3, p.17) says that “applicants that wish to participate may reserve a fixed budget of € 30,000 per year to cover the costs of this participation”. Should we include that within the budget limit? Is that amount expected to cover cost of travel to learning events for example?

Yes, this fixed budget is to be included within the budget limit (refer to ‘Appendix 4vi Guide to Model Budget’, section 3.1.2.D). The amount is expected to cover all costs of participation, i.e., travel and accommodation, but also time of staff involved.

----- Updated as of 15 December ----

Eligibility

120. Can a newly operating Community Based Organisation (CBO) qualify, like for example operating in the Karamoja region in Uganda?

For who is eligible for a grant, please refer to criteria D.1 until D.7 concerning the applicant in the Grant Policy Framework, which need to be met. We underline that only civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) as defined on p.i of the Grant Policy Framework are eligible for a grant. This means that civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) have to be internationally operating – in the sense that they conduct activities in multiple countries (refer to threshold criterion D.1).

In addition, we also specifically refer to threshold criterion D.4 which states that the applicant has to have a proven track record of at least ten years (in any case the 2013-2022 period) in implementing activities relevant to the policy theme for which the applicant is requesting funding. If the newly operating organisation does not meet this criterion, then the organisation is not eligible for funding.
121. Can an organisation operating in Uganda, South Sudan and the DRC apply for all countries, even when it has not operated for ten years in some of these countries?

Threshold criterion D.4 states that the applicant has to have a proven track record of at least ten years (in any case the 2013-2022 period) in implementing activities relevant to the policy theme for which the applicant is requesting funding in fragile and conflict-affected states – including SRoL focus countries. This means that the requirement of having a proven track record of at least ten years does not specifically apply to the SRoL focus countries the applicant proposes to work in. However, please note that threshold criterion D.16 states that the proposed country-level adaptive, locally led programming should build on the applicant’s existing programming and networks in the proposed SRoL focus countries. This means that applicants cannot propose to start activities in (SRoL focus) countries they haven’t worked in before.

122. What does the Ministry consider a valid proof that "the applicant has at least ten years (in any case the 2013-2022 period) of experience in implementing activities”?  [threshold criterion D.4] A minimum of one out of five references showing implementation as early as 2013 (at least), and as late as 2022? Or a minimum of one out of five references showing continuous implementation between 2013 (at least) and 2022?

As stated in ‘Appendix 4.i - Track record format’, applicants should provide five project references out of which at least one reference should present a project that was implemented in 2013 or earlier. This means that the combined five project references should prove that the applicant has at least ten years of experience working in fragile and conflict-affected states (including SRoL focus countries) on the policy theme for which the applicant is requesting funding (security for persons and communities, or peacebuilding and conflict mediation). Individual references do not have to cover the full  2013-2022 period.

123. In order to showcase long term programming, would a combination of different donors and grants, constitutive over time of a country file, be considered an eligible reference? 

Applicants should provide five individual project references in ‘Appendix 4.i - Track record format’. Refer also to Q122.

124. We are an international non-profit organisation, headquartered in Australia and having some regional offices in Africa, Europe and North America. We would like to ask for some clarity regarding which entity we should apply under for this grant. Most of our financial operations happen from Australia, however, one of our legal representations is in The Netherlands. Our Brussels office represents Europe and MENA regions. We would like to ask advice from you as to which entity we should apply under for this grant. 

Only internationally operating civil society organisations (CSO/NGO) that possess legal personality under civil law are eligible for a grant (see Grant Policy Framework, p.i, and threshold criterion D.1). Regional offices that possess legal personality under civil law in the country where they are operating from (i.e., they are legally registered there), could be eligible for funding – provided they meet threshold criteria D.1 until D.7 concerning the applicant in the Grant Policy Framework.

Note that all criteria are applicable to the applying legal person, so need to be met by this legal entity, and that if a grant is awarded, this applicant will be the grant recipient and as such will be fully responsible for implementing the activities for which the grant is awarded, and for complying with the obligations attached to the grant.

Procedural

125. ‘Appendix 4.iii Section 1. Theory of Change’ states that a visualization of the ToC is required (may also be appended). Are we allowed to develop a short explanatory video as a visualization?

No. In order to maintain a level playing field, all applicants are requested to submit a single visualisation of their ToC that captures the ToC (including possible explanations) in one graphic visual / one image.

126. Is it possible to see a recording of the information session held on November 28th? 
If not, is there any written information from that session (e.g. presentation deck, Q&A from the session) we may see?

As explained during the information session on November 28^th, the recording of the session only served the purpose of notetaking and reproducing Q&As for publication on the website. Therefore, the recording will not be shared. The Q&As that were discussed during the session have been published on this website – see Q47 to Q83.

Content and scope of the grant

No new questions relevant to content and scope of the grant were received.

Financial

127. Regarding threshold criterion D.3 ("At least 60% of the applicant's average annual expenditures in the period 2020-2022 are related to the policy themes central to this grant programme: security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation"): The majority (90%) of our programmes focused on security, peacebuilding and mediation. And around 10% on programmes focused on gender equality. A) Is it these programme-related expenditures that we need to communicate under D.3? Or is this criterium about our entire organisations' expenditure? If the latter is the case, B) do we calculate overhead costs, expenditures on communications/ campaigning, public events, IT, etc. as 'other expenditures' (so not contributing to peacebuilding) or do we divide these costs proportionally over our programme expenditures?

Question A: Threshold criterion D.3 applies to the applicant’s entire organisational expenditure. As stated in chapter 1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.2), this grant programme aims to provide prolonged support to organisations that specialise in the relevant policy themes. Section 5.1 of the Grant Policy Framework (p.8) states that organisations whose activities are not explicitly focused on security for persons and communities, and/or peacebuilding and conflict mediation, and whose activities revolve primarily around development cooperation and humanitarian assistance in a broader sense, are not eligible for grant funding. Refer also to Q4 above.

Question B: Overhead (or indirect) costs should be divided proportionally over the programme expenditures.

128. In the Model Budget guidance, under the guidance around indirect costs, it states that relating to our integrity policy, the organisation would need the appointment of at least one confidential adviser. Can the confidential advisor be a trustee (that is not remunerated)?

Yes, the confidential advisor can be a non-remunerated position.

129. Is there a format for the annex for staff costs breakdown (PxQ) and budget narrative?

No, there is no fixed format for this. Please refer to ‘Appendix 4.vi – Guide to Model Budget’ to ensure that all the requested information is included in your PxQ breakdown and your budget narrative.

130. Where can we account for exchange rate fluctuations in the budget?

Though not explicitly included in the Guide to Model Budget, exchange rate fluctuations are non-allowable expenses which may not be included in the budget. 

131. Are there recommended FX rate to use for the budget (from our currency to EUR)?

Applicants have to use the corporate rates in ‘Appendix 2 – Corporate Rates per 1-1-23’.

132. Is there perhaps a model budget template that you are able to share with all relevant cells unlocked? Specifically, we noticed the following locked cells: Sheet 1. Model budget by year: cell E14 until K14, and Sheet 2. Model budget by result: cell E13.

This is a mistake made by the Ministry. Please note that an updated model budget template has been uploaded on the grant programme website – see also here: Programme grant Contributing to Peaceful and Safe Societies 2024-2031 | Decree | Government.nl