STAGE 1 Applications:

  • Can proposals be submitted by email instead of the online format?

    No, PBSO will only be accepting proposals submitted through the online format.

  • Will feedback be provided by email or by phone?

    We are confident that most of your questions will be answered by this comprehensive guide. PBSO will not be able to answer specific questions related to individual submissions. Urgent technical questions can however be submitted by email via the online format.

  • What languages are proposals accepted in?

    English, French and Spanish.

  • How should we set the Gender Marker (GM) and is there a need to elaborate further after putting the score?

    The GM reflects the degree of which gender is integrated into all aspects of the proposal. GPI projects must achieve GM3 with at least 80% of the total funding allocated to Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GEWE), while YPI projects can be either GM2 (30%-80% to GEWE) or GM3 (80%-100% to GEWE). PBSO will check to make sure that the project meets the criteria for the score it has been given – at a minimum, indicators should be sex-disaggregated, the conflict analysis should include gender analysis, and outcomes should be clearly definable in terms of their contributions to gender equality and women's empowerment such that one can see what part of the budgets is to be allocated to these areas.

  • Does PBSO prefer an overall Theory of Change (ToC) for the project or one for each outcome?

    We are encouraging only one ToC for the whole project.

  • Where can we find information on what other PBF funded programmes are being planned or implemented in order to help us to better assess the complementarity of our project and possibilities of coordination?

    Further to consulting the PBF website for general information of PBF’s strategic aims, you can access current and past projects on our Fund Administrator's website, (http://mptf.undp.org/) by going to "analyse all data" tab to the left. For the most up-to-date information. We also urge you to reach out to the PBF Secretariat and/or RC Office in the project country for guidance on the GYPI process.

  • What is the definition of youth?

    Security Council resolution 2250 (2015) defines youth as 18 to 29. For statistical purposes, the UN refers to youth at people aged 15 to 24. Generally, the UN also defers to national or regional definitions of youth where appropriate.

  • What is the difference between recipient organisations (RO) and implementing partners?

    Those organizations listed as RO will receive direct PBF funds through the Administrative Agent MPTFO, while implementing partners will receive their funds through the lead RO.

  • CSOs: Is it only the direct/lead recipient that needs to submit audited financial statements, annual reports and a letter from an external auditor, registration documentation and proof of tax exempt status or do all Recipient Organisations need to submit these documents?

    It is only the direct recipient organisation which needs to submit the audited financial statements. This is because the RO will be the one receiving the funds and, as a results, the one which will be accountable for them. It is up to the RO to exercise their own fiduciary control over its partners. Organisations whose proposals are invited to participate in STAGE TWO will also be required to get a recommendation letter from a UN organisation with whom they have worked previously prior to submitting the full proposals.

  • CSOs: What is the minimum annual budget CSOs must have to be eligible for PBF GYPI funding?

    CSOs must demonstrate an annual budget of at least $400,000 in 2019 and 2018 in the country of project implementation in order to be able to request the smallest available GYPI grant (which is $300,000 for an 18-month GYPI project).

  • CSOs: How do I calculate an annualized PBF project budget?

    An annualized PBF project budget is obtained by dividing the total requested PBF project budget by the number of project duration months and multiplying by 12. The grant amount that CSOs may request, depends on the size of the CSO’s annual budget of the previous two years in the country of project implementation. For the previous two calendar years, CSOs must demonstrate an annual CSO budget in the country of project implementation that is at least twice the annualized budget sought from the PBF.

  • CSOs: If the 2019 audited financial statements are not ready yet, what do we submit instead?

    If your 2019 audited financial statements are not ready yet, please submit the 2018 and 2017 audited financial statements of your organization and send the 2019 audited financial statements to info@pbfgypi.org as soon as they are available.

STAGE 2 Applications:

  • Signature from a representative of the national counterpart (e.g. Minister). Which is the ministry that we need to approach and on what level? Will PBSO facilitate this? Who else other than the minister can sign this?

    PBSO in NY is not in a position to say which Ministry you should be approaching; it should be the one that is most relevant to the sector in which you are proposing the work and in line with the established rules of the country. We strongly recommend that you contact our country-based colleagues for guidance on this question.

  • For CSO Proposals: who is the UN signatory and how and when do we get their signature on the project cover page?

    Successful applications in STAGE ONE will be invited to develop full proposals, which must be accompanied by government and UN signatures on the cover page. The UN signatory is the senior-most UN resident representative (either the UN Resident Coordinator in non-Peacekeeping Mission settings, or the Special Representative of the Secretary-General -- or their Deputy -- in Mission settings). The Recipient Organisation proposing the initiative is responsible for obtaining all in-country signatures, including the RC or D/SRSG's signatures. PBSO can help facilitate contact with their offices if need be. We are requiring the Recipient Organisation to obtain the in-country signatures because it will be important that the funded initiative is brought into the overall UN approach to peacebuilding in the country. Such coordination and oversight will require the establishment and fostering of a good relationship between the UN and the Recipient Organisation throughout project implementation, a relationship that begins at the proposal stage.

  • Can we make any breakdowns in the budget template or we need to go ahead with existing one?

    The existing one is what is required by the Fund's Managing Agent. If you would like to propose a more detailed budget in addition to the one that is required, please do.

  • What degree of flexibility is there in relation to the budget from concept note to full proposal? Are budget increases accepted? To what limit?

    We appreciate that as planning becomes firmer, costs may shift. That said, reasonableness of budget and its association with the stated interventions was among the criteria by which concept note proposals were scored. Deviating too much from what was proposed, then, would violate the level playing field of competition that took place in the first round. In more substantive terms, a substantial departure in budget would also imply a difference in the results expected, which would also violate the principles of competitiveness we established in the first round. We have set a limit of a 10% margin of change in either direction for the final budget, compared to the budget proposed in the first round.

  • Can the full proposal change the geographic scope or number of partners or make other substantive changes from the concept note?

    We understand that as you firm up your planning, some changes in what you had proposed may be required. If you are changing the proposal, however, you should outline why, making clear how this strengthens rather than limits what had been earlier proposed. In addition, please keep in mind that any changes that will have budget implications cannot change the budget by greater than 10%% (either up or down). You may change some of the local partners, but if there was a partner who had been a co-submitter who is being omitted or changed, we would strongly question the proposal.

  • Are we allowed to change the outcomes/wording of the outcomes from what we submitted for STAGE ONE?

    We will accept refinement of outcomes but not a wholesale change in outcomes (unless requested in the feedback provided). Radical change would violate the competitive nature of the concept note selection process.

  • Can we plan to carry out a baseline survey in the monitoring framework?

    Yes. We appreciate that some baselines may need special data collection exercises that may be supported through the monitoring plan and budget of the proposed project. In this case, please indicate "TBD" in the proposal and revise upon completion of the survey as soon after implementation begins.

  • On the results framework: the application form indicates 2 outcomes, 3 outputs per outcome and 3 indicators per output. Is this structure encouraged or can we add or have less outputs and/or indicators?

    This is just a suggested structure, but we would caution against adding additional outcomes or outputs unless the justification is very strong.

  • Does PBSO prefer quantitative or qualitative results indicators?

    PBSO welcomes a mix of qualitative and quantitative. The only caveat is that a given target needs to be more precise than "improved," "strengthened" or "increased". If the initiative is seeking to improve youths' advocacy skills within local decision making structures, for example, one could develop a type of index that specifies the kinds of skills improvements youth are expected to attain. To measure, one could then -- possibly -- conduct quarterly, very focused "partnership" surveys among local decision makers and/or community members to gauge their attitudes toward youth involvement or contribution on key issues. They do not need to be elaborate, expensive surveys. The key here is to define what you mean by the qualitative assessment so that there is some means of comparing outcomes and transparency in evaluating it by others.

  • Can we annex an M&E framework or does the Results Framework suffice?

    You should include both an M&E framework (this is part of the proposal template) AND a results framework (this is an annex within the proposal template). The results framework tells us how you see the various outcomes and outputs contributing to each other and what kinds of indicators you will use to measure progress on these. The M&E framework, then, informs us of the specific actions you will take to monitor that progress throughout implementation and how you will evaluate the outcome in the end. You should indicate budget lines against all major deliverables within the M&E framework.

  • Is the recipient organization responsible for the final audit or will it be taken care of by PBSO?

    The final audit is the responsibility of the recipient organization. CSOs also need to budget for an independent final project audit.

  • What about auditing when there are several UN recipient agencies?

    UN recipients will follow their normal audit procedures as stipulated in their corporate procedures or policies the same as is done for other PBF allocations. The administrative arrangements, including requirements for project closure, are detailed in the IRF template that was provided.

  • Does the final independent evaluation have to be with an international consultant/firm or can it be a national one?

    If there is sufficient national capacity to produce a high quality peacebuilding focused evaluation, we would accept a national evaluator. You should set aside though, around 5-7% of funds for M&E, of which a sufficient amount should go to the evaluation.

  • Normally the policy of PBF is that we don't need to carry out final evaluation for project with a budget under 1 million. Are we going to plan a final evaluation for GYPI projects that are under 1 million?

    Yes. While PBF does not automatically require a final evaluation for projects of less than 12 months or under $1 million, our guidelines clearly indicate that PBF may require final evaluations even of these kinds projects for specific kinds of interventions (where we are supporting a pilot, where a particular intervention may be risky or highly unusual, or where there is some other imperative to systematically capture learning). Since we will be conducting a meta evaluation for all GPI and YPI initiatives to consolidate global learning, we are requiring final evaluations of all GPI and YPI funded work.

  • What will be the actual starting date of the project counting towards the 18 months?

    The starting date will be the date the funds are wired to the organization by the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office (MPTFO).

  • When will funds be disbursed?

    MPTFO aims to disburse funds by the end of the year, which will also be the official starting date of the project.

If you did not find an answer to your question please email us at info@pbfgypi.org.