Call for Proposals 2025: Central Sahel & Lake Chad Basin

As mentioned in the SRF's Operations Manuel (section 9.3), the exchange rate request will be addressed during the due diligence process at the time of contracting, if the project is selected. It is not necessary to include it in the current submission.

The budget template to use for this submission is the one included on this page, above.

The annexes templates have been translated and added to the French version of the site web page for this call for proposals. Only the budget has not been translated, but it contains very little text.

While the Global Indicators Reference Sheet should have been published earlier, unfortunately, it was only made available on the website (above) and by email to the applicants on June 26th. As per the email shared, given the fast-approaching submission deadline, we would like to reassure you that the absence of these indicators in your full proposal at this stage will not be penalizing. These indicators can be incorporated during the contracting phase.

You are allowed to submit a significantly revised budget at the full proposal stage. The concept note budget served primarily to provide an indicative view of the overall budget volumes the applicant foresees for the project. We fully acknowledge that changes and adjustments may occur between the concept note and the full proposal, and there is no maximum percentage of variation imposed between the two versions.

Please note, however, that the evaluation of full proposals will again assess the proposed budget’s quality, coherence, and Value for Money, which will be carefully re-examined by the evaluation committee.

While the SRF Operations Manual indicates that a contingency budget line can be added, meaning it is not mandatory in general, the SRF may adapt this guidance based on the context and strategic objectives of each specific call. In the current call, as stated in the application guidelines (Section 4a), projects are expected to include a contingency or rapid response component, which may represent up to 4% of the total budget. This contingency component complements the project’s core response, which should combine both emergency and resilience dimensions, and aims to ensure flexibility to address potential shocks or unforeseen crises during implementation. 

Yes, the projects have to end by June 30th 2027 at the latest. Therefore, the project duration should be of 22 months maximum.

There is no set timeline for the Q&A. Answers will be provided as appropriate and in a timely manner in this section during working hours. 

There are two distinct but complementary requirements:
Due Diligence Assessments (DDA):
Only the lead applicant will be assessed through a Due Diligence Assessment (DDA) which will take place during the contractualisation phase. As per the Operations Manual, “A lead Partner will be responsible for undertaking suitable due diligence assessments of its own Downstream Partners given that they respect the SRF’s standards. In the case of a Consortium application, completing the assessment before submitting the consortium application along with a capacity strengthening plan defined in the relevant section of this manual will be an asset for project evaluation. In any case, all the Due diligence processes should have been initiated and provide enough information to set up at least a draft of a capacity strengthening plan. Furthermore, conducting the DDA is mandatory before any contracting can occur.”

Capacity Assessment and Strengthening Plan:
As part of its localization strategy, the SRF requires all proposals submitted by international-led consortiums to include a capacity strengthening plan for national and local partners. This plan must be informed by a preliminary capacity assessment (diagnostic) of each national or local organization in the consortium. This assessment may draw on existing due diligence findings but should go beyond compliance, identifying technical, organizational, and strategic areas for capacity development.

The capacity building budget must not be included in the 25% allocated to each partner. It must be identified separately and remain clearly traceable within the lead NGO's overall consortium budget.

Yes, the lead NGO is generally expected to directly manage the capacity building budget on behalf of the consortium. However, flexibility is possible depending on the consortium’s structure. For example, if the lead NGO is not present in a project country, another international consortium member with an established partnership and experience in capacity strengthening with the local partner may manage the budget in that country. In all cases, the use of the budget must remain coordinated and traceable.

No, the SRF capacity building tool is not solely intended to detail activities funded under the SRF project. While the template is structured over a two-year period, it is designed to be flexible and easily adapted to reflect a longer-term capacity strengthening perspective, based on the local partner’s vision and needs.
However, within this broader plan, the capacity building activities specifically supported through SRF funding — and implemented during the project lifespan — must be clearly identified, including their content, objectives, and allocated budget.

This capacity building plan is owned by the local partner, including its priorities and budget. It is not expected to be limited to the scope or duration of the SRF-funded project. As with any institutional or programmatic plan, some resources may already be secured, while others still need to be mobilized.
If some investments still need to be secured beyond the SRF contribution, this should simply be indicated in the relevant section. During regular reviews, the SRF will assess progress in resource mobilization — whether successful or not — without this being considered an obligation. The intention is for the plan to support the local partner’s long-term capacity strengthening trajectory and act as a catalyst beyond the SRF framework.

Yes, including a contingency budget of up to 4% of the total project budget is mandatory in this call. This requirement is meant to ensure flexibility in implementation, allowing response to unforeseen or emerging needs.

For projects submitted under this call, the maximum authorized duration is 24 months. Projects must end by summer 2027.

SRF accepts that applicants use their own tools or capacity strengthening plans, provided they cover all required themes: governance and internal controls, implementation capacity, financial stability, downstream delivery management, and safeguarding measures (protection, accountability, abuse prevention, etc.).

SRF applies a flexible approach to the structure and language of the plans, but they must be structured and go beyond mere compliance or project needs. If a plan doesn’t cover all themes, it must be amended accordingly to ensure a comprehensive capacity-strengthening approach.

The initial diagnostic (tab 1 of the SRF tool) is considered essential to identify strengths and gaps before any support. It is thus expected to be completed at the proposal stage, not delayed until contracting or project start.

That said, the capacity plan — as a tool owned by the national partner and extending beyond the SRF project — remains adaptable. It may be updated over time, including post-contracting, to reflect changing priorities and opportunities.

Applicants must provide the documents officially required by national authorities to prove their legal authorization to operate in each country covered by the project. It is their responsibility to comply with applicable regulations and provide the relevant documents at submission stage.

The SRF mapping location annex requires applicants to clearly indicate the geographic coverage of their project activities, at least down to level admin 3 and ideally down to administrative level 4. The term "Admin" refers to administrative divisions within a country. These are typically organized in several levels — from national to local — and may include (as a general example):

Admin 0: Country
Admin 1: Region or Province
Admin 2: Department or District
Admin 3: Commune or Sub-prefecture
Admin 4: Village or Neighborhood

However, please note that the names, number, and structure of administrative levels vary from country to country, and there is no universal classification.

For this reason, applicants are strongly encouraged to consult with the MEAL teams or local coordination staff in each country concerned, as they are usually very familiar with the administrative mapping and nomenclature specific to their context.

The key expectation is to indicate the location of project activities as precisely as possible using the most relevant and locally recognized administrative breakdown.

Annex 4 was initially planned but has been removed from the list of required documents. It is not expected and does not need to be submitted.

The 3–5% allocation for capacity building, as referenced in the SRF Framework, is intended exclusively for local NGO partners within the consortium. In some cases, it may also include community-based organizations directly involved in the project, but only for support related to their structural and organizational development. In this specific case, it does not cover the technical or operational capacity strengthening of other stakeholders such as health district or health center staff.

As per the guidance note recently issued by the SRF and shared with the ten entities invited to submit a full proposal, the capacity building plan is limited to national and local NGOs that are members of the consortium. It does not cover activities or interventions targeting district health centers, volunteers, or other external entities.

The budget narrative section has now been added to the budget template available on this web page. Please ensure it is included for each partner budget.

The purpose of Annex 06 (Mapping of Locations) is to provide a detailed overview of the presence of all consortium members in the areas targeted by the proposed project. 

Please ensure the following when completing this annex: 

• Include information for all consortium partners, not just the lead applicant. 
• Provide as much detail as possible, including the exact names of the administrative levels and refugee/returnee/IDP camps where each partner is currently operating. 
• Use one line per locality at the Admin 4 level (or Admin 3 level if that is the most precise level available at this stage). 
• If multiple partners are present in the same locality, use one line per partner for that location. 

This level of detail is essential to clearly map the consortium's coverage and justify the planned intervention areas. 

If you are ensure of the Admin levels definition, we encourage you to work closely with your MEAL team which should have all this information. 

Even if a risk applies across the entire implementation area, it is recommended to list it at least by country in the risk matrix. This is because the likelihood, impact, and mitigation measures may vary depending on the context. For example, a security-related risk might manifest differently depending on local dynamics, operational capacity on the ground, or the partners involved. Breaking the risk down by country ensures greater clarity in the mitigation plan and allows for a more accurate analysis by the review committee.

In a budget, Nbr 1/Unit 1 and Nbr 2/Unit 2 are used to break down expenses for better clarity. For example, Nbr 1 and Unit 1 may refer to the number of people, while Nbr 2 and Unit 2 could refer to the duration of their contracts. It is commonly understood that the first pair relates to a quantity of individuals or items, while the second pair usually refers to repetition or a time-based unit.

The budget template has been updated; you can download the revised version above.

Yes, you are required to submit only one version of the budget for the entire project duration. The budget forecast should be used to indicate when (and in which project year) the expenses are planned.

The resilience sector should be included under the Food Security and Livelihood sector, while an additional sector (for shelter) has been added to the budget template and can be downloaded above.

We advise against using a different font size and spacing than the ones indicated for the proposal narrative.

It is requested, especially under the Chapter 1 (Project Activities) and Chapter 2 (Capital Expenditure) to fill out the column D with the Type among the respective dropdown menu. For the Chapter 1, the choice has to be made between direct to beneficiary and other direct activity. For the Chapter 2, the choice is between project implementation asset and general asset. 

Yes, while it is preferred to have all the compulsory documents in a single language, it is acceptable to have documents in the other language. Documents should only be in French or English. No other language is accepted.

The submission of copies of the lead applicant and the members of the consortium legal authorisation as annexes to the submission will be appreciated to support the data provided in the Annex 8 and to complete the legal documents already shared during the concept notes phase.

Questions asked:

In the context of the Sahel Regional Fund's 2025 call for projects, could you please clarify the geographical eligibility criteria, in particular concerning:

• The possibility of submitting a project covering both the Central Sahel and the Lake Chad Basin, or whether only one of these areas should be targeted;
• The admissibility of proposals covering only two of the three Central Sahel countries (for example: Burkina Faso and Mali);
• The minimum and maximum number of countries to be covered within the limit of eligible countries (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and/or Chad).
• Can you clarify the definition of an intervention zone? Is it the country or the areas defined by the HRP at national level? 
• The cross-border dimension of the call 

SRF's response:

SRF does not wish to fund fragmented or "patchwork" projects. Priority is given to solid proposals, anchored in a given territory, with a clear, legible and coherent intervention logic.

In this context: 

• An approach covering both the Central Sahel and the Lake Chad Basin does not fully meet the requirements of geographical coherence (area-based approach), multi-sectoral integration within a Nexus logic, and focus on the needs of populations (people-centered).
• There is no minimum or maximum number of countries to be covered, but projects must envisage cross-border dynamics wherever possible and relevant, and must in all cases ensure territorial coherence and effective coordination between the players involved throughout the territory covered.

An area of intervention is understood to be a geographical entity – at least at regional level, ideally at municipal level – in which at least one consortium organisation has a proven operational presence, with activities implemented over the last 12 months or ongoing at the date of submission.  

It is therefore not enough to claim a national presence or a generic reference to the HRP’s priority areas. The proposed project must be firmly rooted in the specific areas targeted.  

The submission guide specifies that : 

“Priority is given to areas that are difficult to access or landlocked, and to the cross- border dimension wherever possible. Partners must also assess their access capacity (gain and/or maintenance) and the operational feasibility of their intervention, including in the event of altered UNHAS flight coverage.” 

These elements should be understood as criteria for prioritisation, and not as strict eliminatory conditions. However, in a context of strong competition, not incorporating these dimensions may weaken the competitiveness of a proposal, particularly if other projects incorporate them effectively. Elements such as anchoring in areas that are difficult to access, cross-border relevance and operational feasibility are considered to be differentiating assets at the time of evaluation. 

The "Eligibility self-check" tool highlights these aspects to encourage project promoters to think about the strategic and operational relevance of their project from the outset. 

Their absence does not automatically lead to rejection, but they must be clearly justified, with the rationale for their intervention firmly aligned with the call's priorities. 

The priority areas for this appeal are defined as all those identified as such in the Humanitarian Response Plans (HRP), with particular attention paid to areas that are difficult to access or landlocked and, as far as possible, have a cross-border dimension. 

The cross-border dimension, although not compulsory, is strongly encouraged. It must be based on a solid contextual analysis, taking into account concrete dynamics (mobility, shared vulnerabilities, territorial continuity, etc.), and form part of a coherent territorial approach.

Finally, the SRF supports multi-country projects, provided that they reflect genuine territorial coherence and operational integration. It is not a question of juxtaposing isolated interventions in several countries, but rather of proposing a coherent, articulated and contextualised response across the entire target territory. 

The French templates are now available on the French page of the SRF website: Appel à Projet 2025 : Sahel Central & Bassin du Lac Tchad |

Organisations can submit in either English or French.

No. Under SRF rules, a single NGO - whether national or international, and including Board members - can only apply as part of a single consortium for a single call for proposals.

The current call for proposals for the Central Sahel and Lake Chad Basin is a single call: each organization can therefore apply only once, whether as lead partner or partner, and for a single area.

Organisations already funded by the SRF remain eligible for this new call, under the same conditions.

Please note: Several country offices (for INGOs) in the countries targeted by this call may apply together as a consortium. 
In the case of INGOs with identical names but different headquarters, as long as they are separate/independent entities, one application per "headquarters" is accepted. 

Question asked:

Does the rule that the budget must not exceed 30% of the applicant organization's budget apply to national partners as well as international partners individually or is it only applicable for the whole project budget to the consortium lead?  

SRF's answer:

The 30% rule — stating that the budget allocated by the SRF cannot exceed 30% of a partner organisation’s annual budget — applies only to the lead organisation in the consortium. This is to ensure a responsible and proportionate use of project funding. 

• For international NGOs (INGOs), the relevant annual budget is that of the country mission, not the organisation’s global or HQ budget. 

• If the project is implemented in multiple countries by the same INGO, the applicable budget is the combined annual budgets of all the involved country missions. 

No.

SRF's selection process guarantees strict equity between all applicant organizations, whether or not they are members of the SRF Board.

Projects are evaluated in two distinct phases (concept notes, then full proposals), based on a grid of objective criteria presented in the submission guide. These criteria cover both the project's structure and the organization's technical or thematic capabilities.

Evaluations are entrusted to an independent committee made up of:

• members of the SRF management unit (therefore excluding the Board of Directors),
• sector experts from organizations not eligible for SRF funding (e.g. DRC),
• NGO members of the SRF who did not apply for the call for projects,
• UN agencies or external consultants recruited specifically.

All members of the evaluation committee sign a declaration of absence of conflict of interest.

The Board of Directors, the guarantor of the transparency and regularity of the process, is informed of the evaluation procedures, the criteria used and the results. However, the information presented to the Board is fully anonymized until final validation. The anonymity of proposals is lifted only after approval by the Board, and Board members generally express their preference not to know the identity of the selected organizations until the official publication of the results.

As a result, no Board member organization receives preferential treatment. By way of illustration:

• In 2023, CRS (incoming board member in 2025), Mercy Corps (current member), and IRC (outgoing member) were funded.
• In 2025, CONCERN and Intersos, both non-Board members, were selected.

The total budget of 12.5 million GBP is the maximum available for this call for projects. Its distribution will depend on the quality of the proposals received at the end of the selection process.

Consortia must include at least one international NGO (as lead partner) and one national or local NGO (as partner). There is no maximum limit to the number of partners, whether international or national. However, the composition of the consortium will be assessed in terms of Value for Money, which means that it must be both relevant and coherent, as well as cost-effective. Each member must make a clear and justified contribution to the project. A consortium that is too large or redundant, with no demonstrated added value for each organization involved, could be penalized. 

The inclusion of co-funding for projects submitted to the SRF is always appreciated, but is not a criterion for project selection. Projects can therefore be submitted without co-funding.

Any co-funding must be mentioned in Annex A (concept note), in the “Other contributions / matching funds (if any)” section. 

It does not need to be included in Annex B (budget template), to avoid distorting comparisons between the budgets of the projects submitted. The budget presented in Annex B must reflect only the share requested from the SRF.  

As a general rule, the SRF does not provide detailed programmatic requirements beyond what is described in the submission guidelines. These define the main priorities and strategic orientations, and it is up to the applicants to propose responses adapted to the context and needs. 
The SRF's entry point is geographical and contextual coherence, with proposals responding to identified, often multi-sectoral, needs. While the SRF does not promote predefined packages of activities, it does encourage adaptation to the needs of the population. In this sense, proposals must be anchored in the reality of a clearly defined community or population catchment area, taking into account the different vulnerabilities and stages of recovery that may exist within this group. The SRF prioritises responses that make sense at community level, not necessarily by targeting exactly the same individuals from one component to another, but by ensuring overall coherence and relevance at population level. 
The SRF is not a development fund and does not prioritise stand-alone resilience or recovery interventions that are disconnected from current or recent emerge cy needs. 
However, such components may be considered where they clearly contribute to meeting the wider needs of the population, support continuity of assistance and remain proportionate. 
It is important to note that this call allows for project re-engagement ("take-up"), particularly in areas where partners have already operated. In this case, if the proposed activities are intended to consolidate or build on previous work, and this is explicitly stated and justified. a greater degree of flexibility may apply - including the possibility of more resilience-focused components, where appropriate to the context. 
In short, although these approaches are not systematically a priority, the SRF may consider them if they are clearly contextualised, relevant to the population and aligned with the logic of re-engagement or transition. 

The questions asked were as follows: 

• Can this allocation be shared between different national partners 
• Is the 25% budget for local partners required or desired? 
• Is it possible, as part of the project, to hire external suppliers or service providers (e.g. consultancy firms, consultants, logistics providers, etc.) to help implement the activities? Can they be included in the minimum 25% of the budget earmarked for national organisations? 
• Can a national partner be the only member of the consortium in its country of operation? 
• Does the consortium have to include at least one local partner in each of the countries involved? 

SRF's response: 

The budget allocated to national partners may be shared between several local organisations. The SRF strongly recommends that at least 25% of the total project budget (including programmatic, support and indirect costs) be managed directly by one or more national or local NGOs. However, this is not a rigid requirement: as specified in the application guide, this threshold of 25% is an ambition, not a strict obligation. 

Localisation is a fundamental pillar of the SRF's strategy. This is why projects must demonstrate a concrete commitment to the leadership of national partners. Local NGOs must not be reduced to subcontracting or execution roles: they must exercise real decision-making capacity on the planning, implementation and management of their share of the budget. This quality of partnership will be closely examined during the evaluation of proposals. 

Local participation is not just measured in percentages: beyond the threshold of 25%, the SRF will assess the strategic relevance of the partnership, the degree of empowerment, and the clarity of the role played by local NGOs. 

This threshold of 25% applies to the consortium as a whole, and not to each country of intervention. However, it is compulsory to have at least one national or local partner in each of the countries covered. A national organisation cannot a priori be the only member of the consortium implementing activities in its country according to the legal framework of the countries of implementation. 

The 25% can include direct support (e.g. capacity building or human resources), up to a maximum of 3 to 5% of the total budget. However, external service providers (consultants, consultancies, logisticians, etc.) cannot be included in this percentage, as they do not have direct responsibility for project implementation or a strategic role in the consortium. 

As indicated in the submission guide, all the documents listed below must be submitted no later than 4 May 2025 at 23:59 (Dakar time - GMT/UTC) to the email address tender@sahelregionalfund.org. For this call, the documents required at this stage are as follows: 

• Concept note form (Appendix A)
• Preliminary budget items (Appendix B) 
• Logical framework (Appendix C) 
• Elements of the theory of change (no specific outline, a simplified diagram is expected) 
• Documents confirming prior dialogue with local authorities, technical services and communities 
• Official letter of support from the headquarters or regional office of the international NGO (see details in the guide) 
• For projects submitted as takeover projects, two additional documents are required.
  • Self-qualification questionnaire (Appendix D) 
  • An explanatory note specifying the status of the interrupted project, its state of progress and the efficiency gains expected in the event of resumption. 

Learning is a strategic priority for the SRF, in line with Axis 3 of its Theory of Change, which aims to contribute to improved practice in the humanitarian and resilience sectors. The Fund expects projects to help generate useful learning - such as analysis, good practice or reflection - based on their implementation experience. 
The SRF is currently developing specific guidance on the expected learning products, which will be communicated in the coming weeks. At this stage, applicants are encouraged to include a learning component and plan a budget or flexibility to contribute to it. 
More detailed information will be provided to applicants invited to submit full proposals. 

The SRF is committed to the principles of accountability and participation, in line with the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS). As such, it expects partners to demonstrate that their proposal has been the subject of genuine and relevant consultation with local communities and stakeholders.

There is no set format/template or exhaustive list of documents required. Supporting documents can take a variety of forms: minutes of meetings, letters of support, summaries of exchanges, community approvals, local protocols, etc. However, take care not to overload your submission: it is recommended that you remain reasonable in the volume of documents submitted, giving priority to the clearest and most relevant elements. 

The important thing is not so much the type of document as the quality of the local roots and the relevance of the consultation to the proposed project. In cases where the consortium member organisations are already in regular contact with the authorities as part of ongoing programmes, an MoU signed with the authorities may be accepted, provided that it reflects a real and relevant prior dialogue in relation to the area and the activities proposed as part of the SRF project. 

The SRF does not impose a single format, but expects partners to be able to demonstrate solid local roots and effective consultation with the authorities, technical services and communities concerned. If the MoU is recent, still in force, and demonstrates active engagement with local stakeholders in the target area, it may be considered as valid supporting documentation, without the need to produce other formal documents. 

The SRF does not require projects to apply a rigid or predefined version of the graduation model, but encourages partners to draw on its core principles when designing economic resilience components. The model is generally understood as a sequential, multi-stage approach to helping extremely vulnerable households move from dependence on emergency assistance to greater self-reliance. It usually involves a combination of elements such as: 

• targeted support to meet immediate basic needs
• livelihood support, such as asset transfers or professional contributions
• skills training and support
• access to savings groups or financial services
• access to market opportunities or safety nets
• A clear path to progressive autonomy 

What is most important to the SRF is that partners propose context-specific economic resilience strategies that aim to reduce structural vulnerability over time. Interventions should be realistic in scope, appropriate to the project's duration and budget, and targeted at households or groups likely to emerge from emergency dependency, without excluding those still facing acute needs. 

In short, the SRF is not looking for complete graduation programmes, but appreciates proposals that incorporate a logic of progression, enabling the populations affected to strengthen their autonomy in a sustainable and inclusive way. 

For more information, please consult this CGAP overview: https://www.cgap.org/topics/collections/graduation-approach 

The full question is:

Could you provide examples of "Communal Development Plans (CDP)" and other relevant strategic frameworks that applicants should consider for the target regions?

The SRF's response:

Given the geographical scope of this call, which spans several countries and regions, the SRF will not provide specific examples of strategic frameworks. However, applicants should refer to relevant local or national planning documents where appropriate to ensure alignment and contextual consistency. 

These may include, for example, communal development plans (PDC/CDP) at municipal or district level in countries such as Niger or Mali, as well as other sectoral or regional programming frameworks drawn up by local authorities or technical ministries. 

Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate how their proposal takes account of local priorities and existing strategies, in order to strengthen complementarity, local ownership and operational relevance.  

The SRF does not provide applicants with public documents such as Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs). However, these documents are publicly available and can be consulted via the Humanitarian Response or ReliefWeb platforms, or directly on the OCHA website. 

Applicants are encouraged to consult the latest version available for each country concerned, as well as any 2025 planning updates issued by OCHA or the respective Humanitarian Country Teams. This will ensure that proposed interventions are aligned with humanitarian priorities and coordination frameworks at country level. 

For further information: 
https://humanitarianresponse.info 
https://reliefweb.int 
https://www.unocha.org 

The question asked was:

Some of the countries covered by the call for proposals impose restrictions on financial aid programmes. Are we able to propose an alternative methodology in cases where government policies are not cash-friendly? 

The SRF's response:

Please refer to the submission guide, which states: 

"Multi-purpose and unconditional cash transfers are the modality encouraged to cover most basic needs, subject to a feasibility assessment (at least a market analysis based on the MER), Although restrictions exist in some countries, a broader reflection is nevertheless expected on the coverage of non-food needs in order to guarantee a more complete support to beneficiaries" 

This means that where cash is not possible or permitted, alternative arrangements can of course be proposed. However, it is important not to limit the response to food security alone: where possible, appropriate and reasonable, proposals should aim to cover essential household needs – both food and non-food, based on contextual analysis and operational constraints.  

The question asked was:

Could you provide a more detailed explanation or examples of how "management costs" are to be shared and reported by consortium partners? 

The SRF's response:

Overheads will not require any documentation for organisations that are subject to an annual audit.

Overheads will be automatically applied at 7% of eligible transactions for each partner. Management fees are applied to each partner's budget separately and not to the general budget. 

As indicated in the submission guide : 

"The management costs borne by the SRF are set at 7%. These costs must be shared between the consortium partners in proportion to the share of the budget implemented by each."

This means that the 7% cap on indirect costs applies to the project as a whole, in accordance with the SRF's rules, and must be shared proportionally between all consortium members, based on their respective share of the total budget (including programme and support costs). There is no separate threshold imposed specifically for national or local NGOs. 

However, in line with the SRF's localisation commitments, it is strongly recommended that local partners have equitable access to indirect costs in the same way as international partners, i.e. in proportion to their role in financial implementation. This includes not only programmatic activities, but also support functions or staff they manage directly. 

The SRF expects that these costs will not be concentrated solely at the level of the lead agency, and encourages transparency and fairness in the allocation of costs within the consortium agreement. This will be considered as part of the financial evaluation. 

There is no tolerance for management fees in excess of 7%, including in the case of specific constraints encountered by certain partners. 

The flexibility is applied to the overall budget (see SRF's Operations Manual), but the SRF reserves the right to question any significant reallocation between countries, as this would affect the country targets to which the project has committed itself. 

All partners must be legally registered before the start of the project. Therefore, we do not recommend the application (as a lead or a sub-partner) of organisations that are not registered in the country of intervention.

There is no minimum or maximum number of words per section in the concept note but a general limit of 5/6 pages for the whole document for sections l and Il as indicated at the top of the template. 

The question asked was:

Does the lead international NGO have to be operational in all the countries covered by the consortium (i.e. Niger and Chad), or is it acceptable for the lead NGO to be present in only one of the countries (i.e. Niger), while another international NGO partner covers the other country (i.e. Chad)? 

The SRF's answer: 

No, it is not necessary for the lead international NGO to be registered or operational in all the countries covered by the consortium. 
What is important is that the consortium as a whole demonstrates operational capacity and a presence in all the target countries. The lead agency must be able to effectively coordinate and supervise the project, but implementation may rely on other international or national partners active in the other countries. This division of roles must be clearly explained in the proposal, including how coordination will be ensured between countries. 

Yes, additional documents may be attached in addition to those specifically requested, if this helps to better contextualise or support the proposal (e.g, map of intervention areas, evaluation, etc.). 

However, these documents must remain limited in volume (a few pages maximum) and strictly useful for understanding the project. It is strongly recommended not to overload the submission, in order to guarantee a fluid and targeted reading.  

The question asked was: 

In relation to the SRF's stated support for localisation and promotion of local leadership, is there a way in which the Sahel Regional Fund could enable flexible or adaptable funding mechanisms to be built into the proposed project strategy? In other words, could certain sums of money be earmarked for the allocation of local initiatives with local authorities that have not yet been identified (for example, lump sums for small grants for local initiatives included in CDPs or other sub-national plans)? 

The SRF's response: 

In accordance with the SRF operations manual, small donations and community grants are permitted and can be included in the 25% of the budget allocated to local partners. 
These grants must be clearly identified in the budget as "community financial support mechanisms". However, local authorities cannot benefit from these initiatives.

For more information, please refer to the SRF Operations Manual. 

As indicated in the submission guide, Annex D (self-eligibility questionnaire) is compulsory only in the case of re-engagement projects. 

However, its use is also recommended for new projects, particularly for entities that are not yet familiar with the SRF. This tool can be used to check the consistency of the proposal with the Fund's strategic expectations, and can thus help to improve the quality and relevance of the projects submitted. 

The questions asked were :

• Can you confirm whether the Sahel Regional Fund will be signing contracts with partners as part of an Accountable Grant Agreement (AGA)?
• Will the contract be signed directly with FCDO or with the Danish Refugee Council as grant manager?
• Would it be possible to share a copy of the draft contract so that we can examine it at this stage 

The SRF's response: 

The Sahel Regional Fund (hosted by the Danish Refugee Council) acts as fund manager and is contractually responsible for managing the funds transferred by FCDO. In addition, the INGO consortium leaders are the main contract holders. 

As such, the grant agreement will be signed between the selected INGO and the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), using a specific template developed by the SIRF. This model has been approved by the DRC and the FCDO and is in line with the SRF operations manual. 

A draft version of the contract will be communicated to the pre-selected partners after the evaluation of the complete proposals. No contract is signed directly with FCDO and FCDO rules do not apply, only the SRF Operations Manual is applicable. 

The question asked was:

Could you explain the safeguarding standards that will be used in the contract? Will they be based on the FCDO or Danish Refugee Council clauses, or does the Sahel Regional Fund have its own safeguarding standards? 

The SRF's response:

The Sahel Regional Fund applies safeguarding standards that are aligned with the requirements of the FCDO and the DRC. These standards are based on lASC standards. 

The SRF grant contract and operations manual include safeguarding from the Sahel Regional Fund agreement with FCDO, as well as policies and obligations required by the Danish Refugee Council, which hosts the Fund and acts as grant manager. These standards cover areas such as prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse 
(PEAS), child protection, staff conduct and safe complaints mechanisms. Partners will be required to put in place appropriate internal policies and procedures and actively implement safeguarding throughout the project.

The question asked was:

Can a regional organisation that works with member platforms in the countries where it operates consider the latter as local NGOs?

The SRF's response:

Yes, a priori, member platforms can be considered as local NGOs, provided that each entity meets the criteria expected to be recognised as a national or local organisation by the SRF. In other words, member platforms must be registered as NGOs or CSOs in the countries in which they operate; other entities would not be eligible. As a reminder, the SRF uses the IASC definition: 

"Definition of local and national players:

National NGOs/Civil Society Organisations (CSOs): national NGOs/CSOs operating in the aid recipient country where they have their headquarters, working in several sub-national regions and not affiliated to an international NGO. This category may also include national faith-based organisations. 

Local NGOs/CSOs: Local NGOs/CSOs operating in a specific, geographically defined, sub-national region of an aid recipient country, without being affiliated to an international NGO/CSO. This category may also include community-based organisations and local faith-based organisations.” 

It is the consortium's responsibility to ensure that the conditions are met and to be able to justify this if necessary.