ANNEX IV HRP Costing Options – Pros and Cons
  • 15 Dec 2023
  • 2 Minutes to read
  • Dark
    Light

ANNEX IV HRP Costing Options – Pros and Cons

  • Dark
    Light

Article summary

Options
Pros
Cons

Project based costing

 

 

 

  • 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 it3102395-200this can lead to an underestimated plan
  • Information (“transparency”) on cost breakdown could be less visible3102395-200this 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 overlooked3102395-200this can have an impact on programme quality.
  • High difference in costing among agencies (UN vs INGOs vs NNGOs)3102395-200i.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)3102395-200i.e. partners’ financial asks may not be fully reflected in HRP costing.
  • Inability to conduct detailed financial tracking at project / partner level in FTS.

 


Was this article helpful?