Choose your language

6. The Peacebuilding and Recovery Facility (PRF)

The PRF is the programme-based financing mechanism of the PBF, providing up to three years of support to countries towards consolidation of peace. PRF support can only be provided to those countries that have been declared as ‘eligible’ for PBF support by the UN Secretary-General.

While all PBF interventions are made in consultation with national stakeholders, the PRF is driven by the principles of national ownership and country-level decision-making through the Joint Steering Committee, chaired by the partner government and a senior UN representative. It is also driven by a strategic peacebuilding vision of the PBF’s contribution, rather than by individual projects. PBSO allocates a PRF grant against the Peacebuilding Priority Plan (PPP), which is elaborated and approved by the Joint Steering Committee and PBSO. It is only then that the country considers which projects are best suited to implement the Priority Plan. This decision-making authority takes place at the country level: it is the Joint Steering Committee which approves all projects against the Priority Plan.


6.1 Peacebuilding Priority Plan

The Peacebuilding Priority Plan (PPP) is the standard PBF funding instrument for a PRF grant. It serves as the contract between the PBF and the Joint Steering Committee, with a maximum duration of 36 months (3 years). The Peacebuilding Priority Plan:

  • Identifies immediate priorities for peacebuilding that stem from an inclusive conflict analysis exercise (including a strong gender analysis), which is led by the UN jointly with or in close consultation with national governments and their partners (CSOs, UN, WB, EU, bilateral donors, etc.).
  • Outlines priority areas of intervention and intended outcomes, including an indicative financial allocation for each priority area, hence providing the basis for determining the country allocation from PBF against expected results. At the level of the Priority Plan, strategic outcomes should be drafted to reflect the context and the needs, and so will be unique across all PBF funded-countries. Subsequently, projects must be assigned to one of the strategic outcomes of the Priority Plan, as well as coded to one of the 12 PBF Focus Areas (see Section 3.3).
  • Provides the strategic framework for programmes and projects that are developed, approved, implemented and monitored under the direct supervision of the JSC.

When designing a Peacebuilding Priority Plan, two options are available. In the first option, the entire estimated budget of the Plan is submitted to PBF. In the second option, a broader Peacebuilding Priority Plan is submitted (“expanded PPP”), to which PBF will contribute only a part. While the concept of the expanded Priority Plan can be applied to any situation where additional resources will be needed, this has been particularly useful for PBC countries for maximizing linkages between PBF support and objectives of PBC engagement. This approach can also be useful where the national Government does not have a strategic peacebuilding plan and the PPP may serve that purpose.

Wherever there are existing national or UN strategic and planning frameworks such as a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, National Peacebuilding Policy, UNDAF, Stabilization Plan, or a New Deal compact, the Peacebuilding Priority Plan should align with these as much as possible to avoid fragmentation of support. Nonetheless, the exact nature and extent of alignment will be determined on a case by case basis and will depend on how much peacebuilding has been incorporated into these documents, as well as the level of national ownership of these documents. Where possible, PBSO would be interested in being involved in the elaboration of these frameworks.

Priority Plan Preparation and possibility of PBSO “surge” support

The Priority Plan is prepared by the Joint Steering Committee through its Technical Committee and with the support of the PBF Secretariat and the UN Country Team. It is drafted through a process of wide consultation, approved by the Joint Steering Committee and then submitted by the senior resident UN official to the ASG for Peacebuilding Support. While the process must be highly consultative and with strategic support from the UN leadership, it is recommended that one person be given the overall role of drafting and consolidating the Priority Plan. Where possible, the PBF Secretariat or a Peace and Development Advisor are well positioned to play this role. Moreover, although not a formal requirement, UN and national entities are strongly encouraged to informally consult with PBSO during the preparation process.

The in-country peacebuilding capacity and staff are the first point of call for the drafting of the Priority Plans or projects. Nonetheless, upon request from the UNCT and depending on the in-country capacity gaps, PBSO can also provide “surge” support during the preparation of the PPP. Based on the need in the country and available resources at PBSO, a pre-PPP surge support project can be approved using the IRF process, providing some initial funds to the UNCT to help set up the PRF processes. This may include funding or technical support towards the preparation of a conflict analysis or the consultation for and elaboration of a PPP. Surge support can be provided through PBSO officers or through partner organizations, working closely with PBSO. Where surge support is provided by external partners, they will act in line with PBSO guidance and requirements, providing critical support to the field. They will be working closely with the Join Steering Committee and the UN Country Team, but will be ultimately accountable to PBSO. Surge support can also include some funds for the initial set-up of the PBF Secretariat and the Joint Steering Committee.

Priority Plan “phased approach”

PBSO is increasingly recommending to countries to start with a smaller allocation and then consider an additional allocation in a second phase, following the projectization of the first phase and demonstration of good progress on these initial results. In such a case, there is no need to wait for the full three years of the Priority Plan to be finished before the second phase can commence. The second phase can commence after the first year or two, based on the performance, continuing needs and availability of funds. This approach can be made explicit in the Priority Plan request. PBF experience has been that this approach leads to stronger management of the Funds and ensures that there is adequate UN and partner government capacity to implement.

Statement of Mutual Commitment for PBC countries

For countries on the agenda of the PBC, the Priority Plan is aligned with the Statement of Mutual Commitment1. The SMC sets the political framework for achieving peacebuilding goals. The elaboration of the SMC can precede the development of the Priority Plan or may occur simultaneously. However, the coherence amongst the two instruments (one being political, the other programmatic) is imperative.

Priority Plan Content

The Priority Plan has three major components (for drafting purposes, use Template 3.1):

COMPONENT 1: Context and Rationale for PBF support

Peacebuilding context: This section summarizes the key findings of the conflict analysis, including the major conflict drivers, triggers, stakeholders and capacities for peace, as well as the critical current needs. It includes an analysis of how women, men, boys and girls have been impacted by and involved in the conflict. It also highlights why the moment is right for PBF to provide support now – i.e. have there been any recent developments or are there any upcoming crossroads for peace which warrant urgent support.

Strategic peacebuilding plans: This section presents any existing national and UN peacebuilding plans/ frameworks for peace, including their vision and areas of focus.

Mapping of relevant peacebuilding interventions: This section assesses the existing peacebuilding interventions by different actors (government, International Organizations, including the UN system, NGOs, civil society organizations, bilateral donors, etc.) and financial and programmatic ‘gaps’.

COMPONENT 2: Objectives of PBF Support and Proposed Priority Plan implementation

Purpose of the Priority Plan: This section identifies overall vision of the Priority Plan. It summarizes the Priority Plan Outcome Areas (areas of support) and explains their overall coherence, including how they fit together, how they are sequenced and how they add value to or reinforce each other. Objectives need to have a clear peacebuilding impact. As much as possible, gender responsiveness and women’s empowerment should be considered in defining the objectives.

Priority Plan Outcome Areas: For each of the Outcome Areas identified above, this section provides an overview, including: a clear Outcome Statement, a ‘Theory of Change’ explaining the underpinning logic of the type of change this outcome is seeking, a narrative about the rationale, scope and scale of the Outcome Area, including its target groups, geographical scope, focus of support, envisaged modalities of support. In preparing this section, teams should refer back to Section 3.3 of these Guidelines on gender equality.

Catalytic effect and sustainability: This section outlines the expected catalytic effects of the proposed interventions and notes how the effects will be sustained in the longer term (See Guidance Note 5.2: How to programme for catalytic effects?).

UN capacity: This section should provide a brief overview of the UN Team in the Country, including the overall annual budget and the staff. It should include the peacebuilding expertise of the UN, if any, and an outline of the UN strengths/ value-added, which will be put to use in the Priority Plan implementation.

Budget: This section sets out the budget of the Priority Plan by Outcome Area. The size of the budget should be justified on the basis of the previous sections. This section should provide additional narrative that helps to explain the proposed size of the budget, including how value-for-money will be ensured.

COMPONENT 3: Priority Plan Management and Coordination

Management and coordination arrangements: This section identifies the key actors who will take part in the implementation of the Priority Plan, including the Joint Steering Committee, the technical committee, the PBF Secretariat, the UNCT, RUNOs, the national and/or local government structures. It should clearly explain their roles and responsibilities and also illustrate how different interventions will be coordinated.

Risk analysis: This section sets out the main risks identified in the Priority Plan, their likelihood, severity, and risk management, including responsibility for risk management/ mitigation.

Results framework (Template 3.1): This section sets out a Results Framework for the Priority Plan. For additional information on Results Frameworks, see Section 7 of these Guidelines.

Priority Plan Approval Process

Once the Priority Plan is officially submitted, PBSO initiates a consultative process with the Headquarters’ Peacebuilding Contact Group (PCG)2, and in an informal fashion with the Senior Management of the PBC. Once the comments are received, the Plan is assessed by a PBSO Proposal Assessment Committee (PAC).

The PBF programme officer is responsible for preparing a technical assessment for the PAC, taking into account the following criteria:

  • What are the needs and opportunities for peacebuilding?
  • What are the resource gaps for peacebuilding?
  • What level of international attention does the country/situation have? What opportunities are there to mobilize resources beyond the PBF?
  • What is the level of UN leadership in the country on peacebuilding and commitment to the Priority Plan?
  • What capacity challenges may impinge on the ability of the country and United Nations to absorb the proposed allocation?
  • What is the quality of the submission, including that of the conflict analysis, the proposed outcomes, implementation approach and the monitoring and evaluation framework?
  • Have gender equality and women’s empowerment been integrated into the analysis and priority setting?
  • How realistic is the proposed budget and how does it promote value for money?

The PAC recommends a decision (to approve, not approve or to approve conditionally) to the ASG for Peacebuilding. The ASG for Peacebuilding then renders a decision, which is communicated by PBSO to the Joint Steering Committee through the Senior UN Representative in the country. Once established, the approved budget amount is reserved for the country, divided per Outcome Area. However, the funds are not transferred until individual projects are approved by the Joint Steering Committee, in line with the Priority Plan, and this approval is passed to the Administrative Agent (UNDP/MPTF Office). If an allocation has been approved with conditions, the deadline for submitting amendments in writing to PBSO is four weeks.

The start date of the Priority Plan is the date of the approval letter by the PBSO to the country. Its duration is up to three years from the start date.

Diagram 3 – PRF Priority Plan Approval

PRF Priority Plan Approval

PRF Priority Plan Approval


Amendments to Priority Plans

Any amendments to the Priority Plan must be approved by the Joint Steering Committee first and then submitted to PBSO for approval. They need to be well justified. An updated/ re-validated conflict analysis may serve as the justification. Types of possible change include:

  • changes to the Priority Plan Outcome Areas;
  • re-allocation of funds between the Outcome Areas;
  • budget changes to the Plan (based on evidence of under-performance, or – if requesting an increase, following good performance and delivery and a demonstrated need of additional funds for critical needs);
  • extension of Priority Plan duration with or without cost increases.

These will be considered and approved on an individual basis and will depend on the justification provided. The UN Resident Representative and the PBF focal point are encouraged to contact PBSO before submitting any changes for formal approval. Template 3.6 should be used if there is no additional budget being requested; and Template 3.7 should be used if additional budget is being requested.

Renewal of PRF allocations

In some cases, following the end of a Priority Plan, countries may be eligible for a renewal of a PRF allocation, to consolidate peacebuilding gains made during the first allocation. In considering whether or not an allocation renewal is appropriate, PBSO will consider:

  • Delivery performance of Recipient UN Organizations during the first allocation.
  • Complementarities of proposed activities and potential for ‘cumulative impacts’ based on achievement of results during the first allocation.
  • Effectiveness of in-country PBF mechanisms (PBF Secretariat and Steering Committee).
  • Quality of monitoring and reporting in compliance with PBF requirements.

If a country is interested in requesting a renewal grant, the senior UN official should first contact PBSO.

6.2 The Joint Steering Committee (JSC)

The JSC has delegated responsibility from the ASG for Peacebuilding to manage PBF allocations at the country level. Co-chaired by the Senior Resident UN Representative and a senior government representative, the JSC is an inclusive platform for engaging national and international stakeholders in peacebuilding, including key government, UN, civil society and development partner representatives (including the EU, WB, and bilateral donors). PBSO strongly encourages the UN leadership to facilitate the establishment of Joint Steering Committees early so that they can lead the conflict analysis and drafting of the Priority Plan, rather than merely approving the projects within the Priority Plan.

While JSC composition should be tailored to fit the country context, ideally, the JSC should generally be composed of up to 8-10 members. Gender balance and also gender expertise should be taken into account as much as possible. JSC members should see themselves as representing a broader peacebuilding constituency and not just their specific Ministry/Agency. If appropriate peacebuilding coordination/oversight mechanisms already exist and have sufficient capacity, they can and should be encouraged to take on the role of the Joint Steering Committee for the PBF. JSCs can also adopt flexible working mechanisms to adapt to the country contexts, including considering some virtual meetings where necessary. This is particularly important in crowded donor environments. The TORs of the JSC (Guidance Note 5.4) can be amended if needed but must be formally submitted to PBSO for final approval.

The Joint Steering Committee is responsible for:

  • Elaboration of the core strategy and Peacebuilding Priority Plan.
  • Selecting Fund recipients and projects that contribute to PPP results.
  • Keeping oversight on the performance of Fund users.
  • Annual strategic review of the status of results and performance to address conflict drivers
  • Formal submission of annual findings to PBSO by 30 November.

Technical Committee: Typically, JSC decision-making is informed by technical expertise at the country level (thematic, sectoral and/or Monitoring & Evaluation working groups, etc.). If no such mechanism exists, JSC’s are supported by a technical committee or other technical working group including representatives (technical level) from the government, UN, civil society, and international partners. This committee should broadly mirror the composition of the JSC and its purpose is to undertake the technical work that supports and facilitates the oversight and decision-making by the JSC. They work with the PBF Secretariat to assess every new or revised project (using Transmittal form template 3.3) before it is submitted to the JSC for approval.

PBF Secretariat: To facilitate its work, the JSC and technical committees are supported by a PBF Secretariat that is funded by PBF through the Priority Plan (the early establishment of a Secretariat can also be funded through initial ‘surge support’ by PBSO, if requested – see section 6.1). A strong Secretariat is essential for enabling the JSC to play its managerial oversight functions effectively. It serves as the interface between the strategic decision-making level bodies (JSC, technical committee) and RUNOs. It provides the coordination and secretarial support to the JSC and technical committee, and between these bodies and the RUNOs. It also undertakes/ facilitates monitoring of and reporting against the Priority Plan. The PBF Secretariat reports to the Co-Chairs of the Joint Steering Committee.29  It is generally situated with the UN, usually at the Resident Coordinator Office, and reports to the Resident Coordinator on a day to day basis.

The specific duties and composition of the Secretariat should be determined based on the individual country context, needs and capacities, though must include a designated PBF coordinator/ programme officer, as well as an M&E officer. One of these usually also serves as the PBF focal point in the communication with PBSO. The M&E officer would normally become the M&E focal point for the Priority Plan. It should be noted that the actual project document for the PBF Secretariat is approved by PBSO following the sign-off by the JSC (while all the substantive projects are approved through JSCs only and then go directly to MPTF-O for funds transfer). PBSO may also request to participate in the recruitment of the PBF Secretariat staff.

In countries where Secretariats of other pooled funding mechanisms or national aid coordination offices, PBSO should be contacted in order to jointly determine the best arrangements so as to enable the PBF in-country support but so as to also avoid duplication.


6.3 Project Development and Selection at the Country Level

Once the Priority Plan and allocation have been approved, the JSC is responsible for determining and implementing a process that identifies – in the most transparent manner possible – the projects that reflect the ‘best value-for-money’ for achieving the Priority Plan outcomes. The Priority Plan allocation must be converted into active projects within 6 months of the approval of the Priority Plan. If the JSC is unable to meet this deadline, members must send a written request for an extension to the ASG of Peacebuilding Support, together with a justification that explains the reasons for the delay. If the delay is not well justified, funds may be forfeited.

In some cases, project elaboration is done in a consensual manner in a collaborative approach between those UN agencies that are best placed to contribute to a specific Priority Plan outcome (based on their mandate, experience and capacity on the ground) and between their government and non-government partners. In other cases, a competitive call for project proposals or concept notes is undertaken30. Experience shows that the competitive process works best for countries with some prior PRF experience, rather than those who are engaging the PRF process for the first time. In all cases, project documents must adhere to Template 3.2 and identify which UN agency or agencies will be the designated implementer(s) (RUNOs) of the project, the Priority Plan outcome to which the project is contributing and the PBF Focus Area against which the project will be coded. This information will be used by MPTF-O to determine from which Priority Plan outcome funds should be drawn for the transfer to the designated RUNO(s). Projects within the same Priority Plan outcome need to be complementary and coherent and must not exceed the overall budget allocated to that outcome within the PPP.

As previously mentioned,  to make a decision on which projects to approve, the JSC relies on quality assessments of project proposals by the technical committee, taking into account their strategic leverage for peacebuilding, using Template 3.3 and the Value-for-Money checklist (Guidance Note 5.9).  The criteria for the review will be country specific, but must comply with the principles below:

  • Partner Government commitment: The partner government needs to show commitment to the proposed project.
  • UN senior leadership commitment: The UN senior leadership in the country must also show commitment to the proposed project.
  • Peace relevance and link to conflict analysis: The project must be of direct and immediate relevance to peacebuilding and clearly link up with the conflict analysis/ gender analysis and one of the approved Priority Outcomes of the Priority Plan.
  • Critical gap: The proposal must identify the urgency of funding gaps and strategic leverage.
  • Catalytic effect: The project must demonstrate its catalytic effect in the peacebuilding process and identify how achievements will be sustained or built upon once the project is completed31
  • Clarity of results: The expected results need to be clear and achievable, with the expected ‘theories of change’ fully reflected in the logic of the results framework.
  • Implementation capacity: the Recipient UN Organization and implementing partners (government and non-government) must have a demonstrated capacity to implement the project in the timeframe proposed and be able to demonstrate their experience and comparative advantage in working in the project sector. If there is a gap, the proposal must describe the measures that will be taken to redress this gap.
  • Monitoring and evaluation: The project must have a robust M&E Framework that feeds into the Priority Plan M&E Framework and has measurable indicators, baselines and targets. The project’s M&E framework should include a clear plan for when data related to the indicators will be collected and analyzed, and to which review or planning processes this analysis will contribute. The Recipient UN Organization also needs to have a track record of developing, tracking and reporting on key indicators for measuring the quality of peacebuilding outcomes and project performance.
  • Value for money:The project needs to demonstrate how it will ensure value for money and that the most cost-effective inputs are used for the best outcomes. Please refer to the value-for-money check-list (Guidance Note 5.9).
  • Risk: The proposal must include an analysis of risks and assumptions that can impinge on the ability of the Fund Recipient to achieve the planned outcomes. Do No Harm Principles must be included in the risk assessment.
  • Environmental sustainability: Where natural resources are a particular focus of programming, does the project take into account how environmental sustainability and social dynamics around the natural resource may influence conflict factors?
  • Gender responsiveness: Country Teams are encouraged to allocate at least 15% of overall Priority Plan budgets to projects that have gender equality and women’s empowerment as a main objective, while ensuring that a gender responsive approach is mainstreamed throughout all projects. In all cases, JSCs’ review of project proposals should include consideration of whether the project design was based on a solid gender analysis of the conflict, and whether gender has been mainstreamed through the outcomes, outputs, target population, indicators and budget. Every proposal should be scored by the submitting agency, using the gender marker, and must outline how to monitor and report on gender specific results, including by collecting sex and age disaggregated data.
  • Conflict sensitivity: Conflict-sensitive programming is a requirement of all projects. Projects should take into account the context, with particular attention to how conflict dynamics may affect implementation (process) and outcomes (results), and, conversely, how the project may impact conflict. All projects must ensure that Do No Harm principles are respected. Also, the project needs to take into account the Human Rights Diligence Policy considerations, especially for projects dealing with SSR32.

Template 3.3 needs to be filled out by the PBF Secretariat, the Technical Committee (assessing the project against the criteria) and the RUNOs before being submitted to JSC for sign off and then to MPTF-O for release of funding.

The date of funding disbursal from MPTF-O is the official start date of the project and the end date will be moved accordingly, taking into account the number of months for which the project was approved. However, the duration of the project must be contained within the duration of the Priority Plan, so a maximum of 36 months (though in nearly all cases the duration will be less than the duration of the Priority Plan, as it takes time to projectize and disburse the funds after the approval of the Priority Plan; one exception to this may be in cases of a “quick start” package).

Please note that: if a project needs to be extended beyond the duration of the Priority Plan, the JSC first needs to request.

Within 30 days of the JSC approving the projects against the Priority Plan, the M&E focal point for the Priority Plan (with the support of the technical committee, the PBF Secretariat and the UN Country Team) needs to submit to PBSO an updated Phase Two results framework, which includes project-level indicators per Outcome, and the M&E Plan (see section 7 for further details on finalizing the PPP results framework and M&E Plan). Where only a part of the Priority Plan has been projectized at one time, the update of the Priority Plan Results Framework and the M&E Plan will be a rolling task.

Guidance Note 5.5.2 provides a useful summary for RUNOs on how to establish and report on PBF PRF projects.

Fast track project approval

In circumstances where there is an urgent and closing window of opportunity for making a peace-relevant difference to a critical peacebuilding need, JSCs may opt to identify projects that address this time-sensitive need for fast track project approval. This is done by simultaneously approving the Priority Plan (for submission to PBSO) and pre-approving a small set of projects within the Priority Plan, which will then be ready for implementation as soon as the Priority Plan is approved by PBSO. If this is done, it is important to ensure that attention to project-level elaboration at such an early stage of development does not detract from the PRF’s focus on strategic results. If the Fast Track approach is taken, it is recommended that the JSC meeting takes a two-step approach: first approving the Priority Plan and then considering whether the proposed projects are best suited to further the most significant needs/priorities of the Plan. Analysis of the appropriateness and strength of projects should follow the process for project selection outlined above.

 6.4 PRF Project Implementation, Amendment and Closure

Once a project has been approved, the finalized project document must be signed by the co-chairs of the JSC, the RUNO and government partners. The signed project document and the signed Transmittal Form must be submitted to the MPTF Office. MPTF-O ensures the project is in compliance with the signed MoU (between the RUNO and MPTF-O) and is within the Priority Plan allocation. If everything is in order, the MPTF-O then disburses the approved amount to the Recipient (RUNO).

RUNOs are responsible for ensuring that project expenditures are in line with project document activities and approved budget, and that funds disbursement respects their policies, rules and regulations. A financial agreement between the RUNO and the MPTF-O is made via a global MoU that all RUNOs must sign. The MoU is unequivocal in stating that the RUNO is accountable for the use of funds, results achievements as targeted and should work with national or locally-based implementing partners to implement approved PBF projects. The Fund recipient is responsible for putting a monitoring and reporting system in place that meets PBF standards as outlined in Section 7. It is recommended that RUNOs prepare an annual workplan to assist with effective and efficient project management.

During project implementation, RUNOs are responsible for submitting to MPTF and PBSO two project reports per year, using PBSO reporting templates. The six-monthly project report is due on 15 July every year and the annual report is due on 31 March every year, for the previous calendar year. Before submitting the project reports to MPTF-O/PBSO, these should be shared with the technical committee, the PBF Secretariat and programme officer at PBF HQ for quality assurance. They should also be endorsed by the JSC (although, if necessary due to time pressure, the latter can happen after the draft project reports were submitted to MPTF-O/PBSO).

Project Amendment (scope, budget or duration)

Any substantive change to the scope/results of a project, or to its overall budget, must be submitted to the JSC for approval (Templates 3.4). This includes requests for cancellation of a project and re-programming of funds due to under-performance and low rates of expenditure. If a project is cancelled, the funds are to be returned to MPTF-O and will be added to the Priority Plan Outcome Area budget to be reprogrammed by the Joint Steering Committee.

As per the template requirements, the request should contain full details of why the change is being requested and outline the implications of the change for the project. The JSC will consider the request and respond as soon as possible with a decision (three months maximum are recommended). Any approved changes must be shared – via the PBF Secretariat – with PBSO and the MPTF Office in New York for their records. The Annual Report of the Priority Plan should also be used to flag any changes within the projects and, especially, any under-performance and suggested rectifying actions. As previously stated, if the requested extension goes beyond the Priority Plan period or requires an increase to the Priority Plan allocation, the JSC needs to firstly approve and request the amendment of the Priority Plan from PBSO.

If a change is proposed within the approved budget and has no substantive effect on the scope of the project or its objectives or on the total budget, but only re-allocates between budget categories, the process will depend on the size of the re-allocation requested. If the re-allocation concerns more than 15% of any project budget category, then Template 3.5 must be filled out and signed off by the RUNO and the Government counter-part. The transmittal form with the JSC signature is not required. However, the proposed change will need to be mentioned at the next JSC meeting and the JSC must show no objection, which needs to be recorded in the JSC minutes. The Template 3.5 and the JSC minutes must then be forwarded to MPTF-O and PBSO for their records.

If the change affects less than 15% of any budget category and the change has no effect on the scope of the project or its objectives or on the total budget, the RUNO can re-allocate it internally without formal approval processes.

Guidance Note 5.6.2 provides a useful summary on how to proceed with amending PRF projects.

Project Final Closure

Based on the MoU between the MPTF-O and Recipient UN Organizations, projects need to be completed and operationally closed within their allocated period, and a final project report reflecting the total, cumulative outcomes of the project submitted within three months of the operational closure. A project then moves into a financial closing phase. Any unspent balances at the end of the project need to be returned to MPTF-O before financial closure is complete. The exact amount to be refunded should be agreed between the RUNOs and the MPTF-P. The project closure process should take no longer than six months from the operational closure of the project (Guidance Note 5.7 How to close PBF  projects). Any unspent and returned funds from PRF projects go back to the PBF pool held by the MPTF-O, and are not returned to the Priority Plan to re-allocate.

Related Templates

– PRF Priority Plan (Template 3.1)doc Download PRF Priority Plan- Template 3.1

– PRF Project Document (Template 3.2)doc Download PRF Project Document - Template 3.2

– PRF Project Assessment Form by JSC (Template 3.3)doc Download Project Transmittal Template- Template 3.3

– PRF Revised Project Document (Template 3.4)doc Download Download PRF Revised Project Document - Template 3.4

– PRF Budget revision and non cost extension (Template 3.5)doc Download Project Budget Revision & Non cost Extension request- Template 3.5

Related Guidance Notes

– How to programme for catalytic effects (Guidance Note 5.2) doc Download How to programme for catalytic effects- Guidance Note 5.2

– How to develop TORs for the Joint Steering Committee (Guidance Note 5.4) doc Download TORs for the Joint Steering Committee- Guidce Note 5.4

– How to establish and to report on PRF projects? (Guidance Note 5.5.2) doc Download Guidance on the establishment and reporting requirements for new PBF-PRF projects- Guidance Note 5.5.2

– How to make a cost/ no-cost extension request? (Guidance Note 5.6) doc Download Guidance for IRF and PRF Project Extensions (Cost or No-Cost)- Guidance Note 5.6

– How to close a project? (Guidance Note 5.7) doc Download IRF and PRF Project Closure Guidance- Guidance Note 5.7

  1. 1.SMC: agreement between the Government and the Peacebuilding Commission
  2. 2.PCG: Interagency working group has representatives (technical level) of: UNDP/BCPR, UNICEF, UNWOMEN, UNIFEM, DPA, DPKO and WFP.