Provides overview of response capacity, and early identification of possible gaps and duplications.
Allows financial tracking of response (projects requirements vs funding received in FTS).
Visibility to partners (appealing agencies listed in HRP and FTS).
Match between partners’ financial asks and HRP costing.
Possibility to prioritize projects during an emergency.
Possibility to link directly to humanitarian pooled funds (facilitating submission process for partners).
Provides higher transparency of process through the project Review Committee that would include various actors (including NNGOs).
Allows the FSC teams to better understand partners' capacity/strategies.
Overall cluster/sector financial requirements reflect capacities of appealing agencies, which can be much lower than needs in some cases (though this could be considered appropriate to avoid unrealistic plans).
Disconnect between targets and financial requirements if former is not defined based on submitted projects.
Partners have to submit one (or more) projects to be part of the HRP, and the process takes longer time because it includes projects' submission/revision/clearance. Some partners may not be willing to engage / be excluded if timing not convenient / they do not see benefit of itthis can lead to an underestimated plan
Information (“transparency”) on cost breakdown could be less visiblethis can lead to a risk of budget overinflating or under estimation (impacting quality standards). The FSC needs to check information / ensure agency capacity.
Lengthy process to review all projects – vetting done with FSC committee when possible.
Unit based costing
Financial requirement is directly linked to needs.
Allows partners to focus on strategic decisions of the planning process.
Once unit costs are calculated, easy to put in place, e.g. also for revisions / rapid onset emergencies
FSCXXXXXXXXXXXXXX partners do not have to submit project sheets, nor be involved in lengthy vetting process
Lengthy process to get full endorsement from partners on set of activities and average costs which might require regular review and updating (as a result of fluctuating needs and/or prices).
Partners may not be willing to share their unit costs.
Support costs can vary considerably between geographic areas but also due to agency capacity.
Costing of complementary activities may be overlookedthis can have an impact on programme quality.
High difference in costing among agencies (UN vs INGOs vs NNGOs)i.e. partners’ financial asks may not be fully reflected in HRP costing.
Certain level of funding may not translate into the expected levels of achievements if actual costs of operations differ from HRP costing.
Inability to conduct detailed financial tracking at project / partner level in FTS (as no projects are submitted on HPC).
Reduced partners’ visibility (no list of partners in HRP and FTS).
Less information for coordination team on planned interventions and potential gaps / duplications.
Less direct engagement of partners with clusters (more with donors).
Mixed/Hybrid approach
Same as unit based:
Financial requirement is directly linked to needs.
Allows partners to focus on strategic decisions of the planning process.
Once unit costs are calculated, easy to put in place, e.g. also for revisions / rapid onset emergencies.
Same as project based:
Provides overview of response capacity, and early identification of possible gaps and duplications.
Visibility to partners.
Same as unit based:
Lengthy process to get full endorsement from partners on set of activities and average costs.
Difference in costing among agencies (UN vs INGOs vs NNGOs)i.e. partners’ financial asks may not be fully reflected in HRP costing.
Inability to conduct detailed financial tracking at project / partner level in FTS.
this can lead to an underestimated plan