Country-Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs) play a key role in delivering on the Grand Bargain and changes to improve the humanitarian financing system agreed by aid organizations and donors in 2016 (see 1.3).  

Multi-donor and Unearmarked: CBPFs are multi-donor humanitarian financing instruments established by the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) in a specific country when a new emergency occurs or when an existing crisis deteriorates. They allow donors to pool their unearmarked contributions to specific emergencies. 

Management: CBPFs are managed by OCHA at country level, under the leadership of the RC/HC and in close consultation with the humanitarian community. Advisory Boards (with donors, UN and NGO representatives) oversee the funds and advise the RC/HC on key decisions.

Basis for Allocation: CBPFs are allocated by the RC/HC through an in-country consultative process to support the delivery of the HRP s, while retaining the flexibility to allocate funds to unforeseen events. In other words, they are allocated based on identified humanitarian needs and priorities at country level and to projects, which fit strategic objectives in the HRP (which is why clusters play a critical role – starting from with the development of cluster strategic response plans and priorities).  

CBPF recipients: UN agencies, national and international NGOs, Red Cross/Red Crescent organizations that are included in the HRP (where the HRP applies a project based approach – see 9.5.2), are eligible to apply for CBPFs. All UN agencies are automatically eligible whereas I/NGOs first must undergo a capacity assessment process, conducted by OCHA (certain criteria usually apply, for example, the recipient organisation must attend cluster meetings regularly and must pass OCHA’s due diligence screening). 

Principles of Country-Based Pooled Funds: The management at the country level is guided by five key performance principles:  

1. Inclusiveness: Allocations should support the “highest-priority projects” (in terms of need) of the “best-placed responders” (i.e. those organisations that are best placed to do the work in terms of geographical location, organisational resources, skills and experience). They should also aim to incentivize a wider inclusion of a broad range of humanitarian partners in coordination mechanisms and empower local and national responders. CBPFs are the largest source of direct funding for national and local actors (around 25% of all CBPF funding). 
2. Flexibility: The programmatic focus and funding priorities of CBPFs are set at the country level. They are able to adapt rapidly to changing priorities and allow humanitarian partners to identify appropriate solutions to address humanitarian needs in the most effective way.  
3. Efficiency:CBPF management should be cost-efficient, context-appropriate and compliant with the CBPF Global Guidelines and should operate in a transparent and accountable manner.  
4. Timeliness:CBPFs allocate funds and save lives as humanitarian needs emerge or escalate.     
5. Accountability and Risk management: CBPFs manage risk and effectively monitor partner capacity and performance. CBPFs utilize a full range of accountability tools and measures. See performance indicators in the Common Performance Framework (CPF) for CBPFs (OCHA, 2017).

Countries with CBPFs: There are 18 countries (as of December 2022) with active CBPFs and one country with a Regionally-hosted Pooled Fund (RhPF), which are allocating funding predominantly among (in order of largest recipients first) INGOs, national NGOs and UN agencies. The main CBPF donors include Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Ireland.

See more – and up to date - information on all CBPF allocations on the CBPF Data Hub.

CBPF Modalities and Process – the Standard and the Reserve Allocation  

CBPFs provide the RC/HC with two modalities to allocate funds: the standard allocation, and the reserve allocation. The size of each is determined by the specific country context. The RC/HC, in consultation with the Advisory Board (AB), determines the appropriate use of the two modalities given the context.

For more detailed information on both allocation workflows, see Global Guidelines for CBPFs (OCHA, 2017). 

Clusters and CBPF Application Process  

The CBPF application is embedded in the humanitarian coordination architecture. The clusters, through the ICCG, support the RC/HC with the identification of priority humanitarian needs.   

It is important that the process of CBPF is discussed at ICCG level: cluster coordinators are expected to advocate for funding within the CBPF allocations and discuss the envelope for each cluster at ICCG level. The FSC Coordinator and CLAs may also advocate for the food security envelope with RC/HC and OCHA. The process for allocating funding requires clusters to undertake the strategic and technical review of projects. Very often the funds are not enough for all clusters and so there should be a common agreement on the prioritization at ICCG level. 

Clusters (and Cluster Coordinators) are involved in three key steps of the CBPF Cycle  

1. Cluster Partner Application (and subsequent project amendment): Cluster partner proposals should be developed with programmatic guidance from the relevant Cluster Coordinator(s) before the applicant submits them to the Fund.
   The FSC Coordinator also plays a key role in reviewing proposed project amendments in the course of implementation following the “fund disbursement step” of the CBPF process (see text box below for details on the “Steps in the Process for CBPF Standard and Reserve Allocations”). Often, given the volatile context, partners may propose some changes or amendments (e.g.  geographic area due to access problems etc.) or another project component, after the full CBPF process has completed. In such cases, the Coordinator will be contacted by OCHA and should review/approve these project changes (possibly involving the review committee) following the principles of the original project review and scoring (as outlined below).
2. Strategic and Technical Review of Projects: Cluster Coordinators should ensure that a strategic review of projects is carried out as agreed, contribute to the technical review of project proposals and promote the systematic use of relevant standard indicators for projects. See text box below for an overview of key steps in the CBPF cycle, with the specific role of the FSC Coordinator and FSC review committees.
3. Monitoring and Reporting: Depending on the context, clusters should participate in field monitoring visits to support the technical assessment of implemented projects according to the provisions of the accountability framework endorsed by the RC/HC. 

Project Review

As noted above, the CBPF allocation process includes two types of project review where the FSC Coordinator’s involvement is required:

• A strategic review which assesses whether project proposals are in line with the cluster strategy and priorities.
  The FSC strategic review committee should equitably represent the FSC members. Members of the committee should be knowledgeable of humanitarian operations and the FSC strategy and priorities.
  The committee reviews and scores submitted projects on: 
  • Strategic relevance, 
  • Programmatic relevance, 
  • Cost-effectiveness, 
  • Management and monitoring, and, 
  • Engagement with coordination (i.e. participation in FSC meetings); 
  • Localisation.  
    Based on the review, a shortlist of prioritized projects will be developed for consideration for CBPF funding.
    To ensure transparency, an agreed-upon scoring / prioritization matrix should be applied (specific criteria are agreed by OCHA in consultation with the clusters).
    This also applies to the technical review – see Annex I for an example of a score cards used by the FSC during a CBPF technical review.
• A technical review, which assesses the technical soundness and quality of project proposals. The FSC technical review committee should be made up of a small group of technical experts. Members should be selected based on demonstrated technical knowledge of emergency food security programming. A smaller group will allow for detailed deliberation of the technical aspects of project proposals. It is likely that some members of the strategic review committee also will be members of the technical review committee. Sufficient time and effort should be dedicated to ensure that substandard projects are improved (or rejected).
  The committee reviews project proposals based on: 
  • Their technical merit, and, 
  • Timing of the implementation (e.g. seasonality), 
  • The appropriateness of the budgetary provisions.  
    Important: In case an organisation, which is part of the review committee, also submits projects, the Coordinator should ensure they do not take part of the review of their own projects (they will normally step out of the room during the project evaluation by the committee). The same applies to the Coordinator, i.e. he/she should not review the project of FAO/WFP (according to his/her contract) to avoid any conflict of interest.   

The key steps in the CBPF process are listed below with an indication, where relevant, of the specific role of the FSC Coordinator and FSC review committees. While the process steps and their sequence are mandatory, country-specific approaches are often applied within each step. 

*Adapted from the Health Cluster Guide (WHO, 2020), p. 432.