harmonized approach to cash transfers framework · harmonized approach to cash transfers framework...
TRANSCRIPT
UNITED NATIONS IN BHUTAN GROSS NATIONAL HAPPINESS COMMISSION
2012
Harmonized Approach to
Cash Transfers
Framework A Reference Manual
T H I M P H U , B H U T A N
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjk
lzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
This reference manual was complied by:
Vathinee Jitjaturunt, Former Deputy Representative, UNICEF
Tashi Dorji, Programme Coordinator, GNHC
Kesang Choden, Operations Manager, UNDP
Pem Chuki Wangdi, Head, Management Support Unit, UNDP
Kinlay Penjor, Programme Officer, UNICEF
Kalpana Humagai, Operations Officer, UNICEF
Sonam Dhendup, Former Finance Associate, UNFPA
Phurpa Tshering, Finance Associate, UNDP
Tshering Wangdi, Finance Associate, UNFPA
Phub Delma, Finance Associate, WFP
Royal Government of Bhutan
Gross National Happiness Commission
FOREWORD
Under the current United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF 2008-2013)
support to the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB), agencies, both Government and Civil
Society, implement its approved activities under the purview of a set of common UN procedures
and rules for requesting cash and reporting on its utilization. Activities and assurance of
utilization of provided cash is also agreed on and coordinated through joint assessments and
assurance activities thereby strengthening national capacities and control systems for
management and accountability.
As agencies receiving UN support use common procedures for requesting cash and reporting on
utilization of fund against approved activities, this HACT manual will provide both
Implementing Partners and UN colleagues, a one place reference for all issues related to HACT
implementation and ensure effective harmonization and coordination of UN support in Bhutan
with the national priorities, needs and systems.
Toward this end, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the UN Agencies, both within
and outside Bhutan, who have continuously rendered their continuous support and guidance
in assisting the RGoB in meeting its national priorities and needs as well as in strengthening
our national systems and capacities. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend the
members of HACT Working Group for taking the initiative of putting together a very useful
document such as this.
I, on behalf of the RGoB would like to encourage all agencies receiving UN support to use this
manual as their principal reference for effective programme financial delivery.
Tashi Delek.
Karma Tshiteem
Secretary
i
FOREWORD
It is with great pleasure that we bring to you the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers
(HACT) Framework: A Reference Manual. This manual has been developed for our Implementing
Partners and UN colleagues, and is intended to provide guidelines and reference in one place
for all issues related to HACT implementation.
For your information, HACT was introduced in Bhutan in 2008 in parallel with the 2008-2013
United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). Bhutan achieved full HACT
compliance in 2010. Full HACT compliance means that the three elements of the Framework
(Assessments; Assurance Activities and the use of FACE forms) are in place and are being used
and referred to by our Implementing Partners.
Bhutan is a “Delivering As One (DAO)” country, and HACT ensures that the implementation of
the DAO approach is focused on strong national ownership and aligned to national systems.
This manual will also be used as the common reference document for all trainings on HACT.
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the Gross National Happiness Commission and
our Implementing Partners for their contribution and commitment in ensuring that HACT
implementation is a success in Bhutan. I will also like to take this opportunity to thank the
members of the UN-RGoB HACT Working Group for taking the initiative of compiling this
manual.
We encourage all agencies receiving UN support and UN staff to use this manual as their
principal reference for effective programme financial delivery.
Tashi Delek.
Claire Van der Vaeren
Resident Coordinator
ii
Table of Contents
Message from Secretary, Gross National Happiness Commission…………………………….………..i
Message from UN Resident Coordinator, UN Bhutan……………………………………………….…….ii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………….……iii
Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………………………………iv
Chapter 1 : Rationale Behind the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers Framework…….1
Chapter 2 : Elements of HACT………………………………………………………………………..…….3
2.1 Assessments: Macro and Micro-Assessment
2.1.1 Macro-Assessment 2.1.2 Micro-Assessment
2.2 Assurance Activities
2.2.1 On-site Reviews of IPs
2.2.2 HACT Audits
2.2.3 Programmatic Assurance 2.3 Funding Authorization and Certification of Expenditure (FACE) Form
Chapter 3 : Country Programming Process, Common Country Programme Action Plan……20
(CPAP), 18 month Rolling Work Plan (RWP) and Standard Progress Report
(SPR)
3.1 Common Country Programme Action Plan 3.2 18 Month Rolling Work Plan
3.3 Standard Progress Report
Chapter 4 : Cash Transfer Procedures…………………………………………………………………..27
4.1 Harmonized Cash Transfer Procedures 4.2 Cash Transfer Framework on the Programming Process
Annexes
Annex 1: Frequently Asked Questions………………………………………………………………v
Annex 2: HACT Implementation Milestones………………………………………….…………..xx
Annex 3: Delegation of Signing Authority for the Funding Authorization and Certificate
of Expenditure (FACE)Form ……………………………………………………………xxi
Annex 4: Guidance Note on Annual Fixed Asset (Non-Expendable Property………….xxiii
Report) Form
Annex 5: Financial Procedures for UN Assisted Projects……………………………………xxvi
Annex 6: Guidelines: Standard Progress Reports……………………………………………xxxii
iii
HACT)
Abbreviations
CCA : Common Country Assessment
CP : Country Programming cCPAP :common Country Programme Action Plan
CPD : Country Programme Document
CPP : Country Programming Process
DCT : Direct Cash Transfer
DP : Direct Payment
FACE : Funding Authorization and Certificate of Expenditure GNHC: Gross National Happiness Commission
HACT : Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer
IPs : Implementing Partners
JSM : Joint Strategic Meeting
MOF: Ministry of Finance M&E : Monitoring & Evaluation
MDG : Millennium Development Goal
NGO : Non Governmental Organization
OR : Other Resource
PFM : Public Finance Management
PRSP : Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper/Plan RAA: Royal Audit Authority
RR : Regular Resource
SAI : Supreme Audit Institution
SPR : Standard Progress Report
UNCT : United Nations Country Team UNDAF : United Nations Development Assistance Framework
UNDG : United Nations Development Group
UNICEF : United Nations Children Fund
UNDP : United Nations Development Programme
UNFPA : United Nations Population Fund
WFP : World Food Programme Training Manual Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT)
Training Manual Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT
iv
Chapter 1 Rationale behind the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers
Pursuant to the UN General Assembly Resolution 56/201 on the triennial policy review of
operational activities for development of the United Nations system, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA
and WFP (UNDG ExCom Agencies) adopted a common operational framework for transferring
cash to government and non-government Implementing Partners. Its implementation will
significantly reduce transaction costs and lessen the burden that the multiplicity of UN
procedures and rules creates for its partners.
Implementing Partners (IPs) will use common forms and procedures for requesting cash and
reporting on its utilization. Agencies1 will adopt a risk management approach and will select
specific procedures for transferring cash on the basis of the joint assessment of the financial
management capacity of Implementing Partners. They will also agree on and coordinate
activities to maintain assurance over the utilization of the provided cash. Such jointly
conducted assessments and assurance activities will further contribute to the reduction of
costs.
The adoption of the harmonized approach is a further step in implementing the Rome
Declaration on Harmonization and Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which call for a
closer alignment of development aid with national priorities and needs. The approach allows
efforts to focus more on strengthening national capacities for management and accountability,
with a view to gradually shift to utilizing national systems. It will also help Agencies shape their
capacity development interventions and provide support to new aid modalities.
What is different with HACT?
HACT Procedures Old Procedures
UN agencies assess the environment in
which government and other implementing
partners work (done through assessments
of the public financial management system; or macro-assessments)
The public financial management systems, or
the environment under which cash is
transferred to partners, is not assessed
UN agencies assess the financial
management capacity of individual
partners (micro-assessments)
UN agencies do not formally assess the
partners‟ financial management systems
Based on the findings of the macro- and micro assessments, the UN agencies adjust
their assurance and capacity building
activities
All partners and situation are treated the same
Implementing partners provide a
certificate of expenditure (FACE form)
which is subject to audit
For UNICEF: Implementing partners submit
receipts for their expenditures
For UNDP: the specifically created project account is audited annually
Closer programming monitoring through
more intense field visits and mid year and
UN agencies tend to rely on accounting
information to assure themselves that
1 Throughout this Manual the term “Agencies” will be used to refer to the UNDG ExCom Agencies and any
other UN Agencies that choose to adopt these procedures.
1
annual reviews, HACT audits, on-site
reviews and – if needed special audits are
conducted to receive assurance that
activities and funds were implemented and
used as planned
activities have taken place as planned
The focus is on implementation of agreed
activities and results
The focus is on providing accounting reports
Funds are provided for activities to take
place during the next three months, as
agreed in the RWP
Funds are provided for activities to take place
during the next three months but requests are
often received on an ad-hoc basis
Possibility of re-programming unutilized funds, for other activities agreed in the
RWP
Possibility of reprogramming exists, but must be dealt with on a case-to-case basis
Monitoring reports (FACE form and SPR) to
be received quarterly, summing up all
received and outstanding installments
Piecemeal reporting on use of funds
No receipts required except for FACE form-
implementing partners keep their original
documentation and the integrity of their
accounts
Receipts have to be provided (to UNICEF) or
separate project accounts have to be
maintained (UNDP)- in both cases the
accounting systems of implementing partners
require additional efforts or systems.
2
Chapter 2
Elements of HACT
The Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers has three main elements which have been
detailed in the following sections:
2.1 Assessments: Macro and Micro-Assessment
Introduction
With the shift from the control management system to a risk management system under
harmonized procedures, the UN agencies are required to assess the Implementing Partner‟s risks associated with the transactions before initiating cash transfers to be aware of the IP‟s
Public Financial Management (PFM) environment. Two types of assessments, Macro and Micro,
are required to be conducted and have the following objectives:
1. Developmental Objective:
Ensure awareness of National/IP PFM system including the strengths and weaknesses.
Identify areas for capacity development.
2. Financial Management Objectives:
Provide background information to identify the most appropriate cash transfer modality and assurance methods.
Indicate if the Supreme Audit Authority can be used to audit the IPs.
The assessments do not impose conditionality for any assistance from the UN agencies to the
IPs.
2.1.1 Macro Assessment:
The Macro Assessment is a desk review of existing assessments of the National PFM system
under which the UN provides cash transfers before the introduction of the harmonized
procedures. The assessment is undertaken once per programme cycle (preferably during the
Common Country Assessment preparation).
The review covers areas of the national budget development and execution process, the
functioning of the public sector accounting and internal control mechanisms, audit and
oversight, financial recording systems and staff qualifications.
The macro-assessment report should include the following:
• Summary of finding in key areas
• Summary of risks
• Assessment of the national Supreme Audit Institution
• Capacity gaps and opportunities for capacity development
• Completed checklist.
The Macro Assessment for Bhutan for the current programme cycle )2008-2012 (extended to
3
2013) was completed in 2006 and the report has been annexed to the United Nations
Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). The Macro Assessment for Bhutan is based on
the following relevant studies/document of the World Bank (WB):
1. Country Financial Accountability and Assessment (CFAA) in 2002.
2. Note on Public Financial Accountability and Management (PFAM) in 2005. 3. Roadmap towards Universal Reliance in Bhutan‟s Country Systems; Public Financial
Management in 2006.
The assessment indicates the existence of a reliable and transparent public financial
management system and Royal Audit Authority‟s (RAA) independence with some risk areas:
insufficient staff qualifications and financial management skills, limited internal control system
and delay in transferring fund to project level. The table below combines the checklist results,
WB‟s recommendations from PFAM (2005) and the Road Map.
Sl. Indicator Risk Recommendation Remarks*
1 Budget Information Low
2 Budget Performance Moderate Introduce multiyear rolling budget
with links to the Medium Term Fiscal Framework- Ongoing
World Bank/
IDF Grant
3 Internal Control Significant Establish organizational structure
and independence including clear
mandate for internal audit units and;
staff to be trained in the use of
professional audit methods.
Update FRR 2001 as part of GG+ recommendations.
World Bank
4 Bank Reconciliation Moderate Upgrade BAS to monitor suspense
and advance accounts and provide
ageing information on suspense
balance.
NA
5 Transfer of cash
resources
High Development of e-transfer system –
ongoing
NA
6 Cash and asset position
Moderate Improve cash planning and forecasting. Provide information on
liabilities and probable contingencies.
DANIDA (feasibility
study)
7 Coverage of external
audit
Low Introduce selective audits using
sampling techniques; train audit and
accounts personnel
World
Bank/IDF
Grant
8 Follow up action to
audit reports
Moderate Mechanism needed in MOF to actively
track and monitor response to audit observations.
NA
9 Transparency of
Audit Process
Moderate World Bank/
IDF Grant
10 Staff qualification
and skills
Significant Greater professional leadership; Equal
opportunities for regular in-service
training: training for senior managers.
Expansion in opportunities and
enrolment at the RIM for finance staff.
NA
11 Financial Systems Moderate Enhance database networking
User training
DANIDA
4
2.1.2 Micro Assessment
The Micro Assessment is to assess the risks related to cash transfers to the IPs and is
conducted once every programme cycle or whenever a significant change is noticed in the IP's
organizational management.
The Micro Assessments are conducted for IPs who receive or are expected to receive cash
transfers above an annual amount of US$ 100,000 combined from all UNDG agencies as
initially defined in the cCPAP/RWP or as agreed locally among the UN agencies.
The assessments provide an overall risk rating on the financial management of IP related to
accounting, reporting, auditing and internal control. The overall risk of an IP is rated “low” if their system is considered capable of correctly recording the transactions and balances,
support the preparation of regular and reliable financial statements, safeguard the asset and is
subject to acceptable auditing arrangements. It should be conducted in a transparent manner
with participation from the IPs.
The UN agencies use two checklists for the micro-assessment. Checklist A is used when
adequate information exists and confirms that overall risk related to cash transfers to the IP is
low. Checklist B is used when a second-stage, more detailed assessment of IP is required if the
information is inadequate or overall risk is high (Checklist B).
Each Micro Assessment concludes with a statement of the overall risk related to cash transfers,
rated as either “low,” “moderate,” “significant” or “high” as below:
Risk level Description
High System & control framework is weak and inadequate to assure that
most cash transfers are used and reported as agreed with the ExCom
Agencies
Significant System & control framework is weak and inadequate to assure that
some cash transfers are used and reported as agreed with the ExCom
Agencies
Moderate Some weakness in the financial system & functioning control framework
Low A well developed financial system and functioning control framework
l Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT)
In exceptional situations, when a Micro Assessment of an IP cannot be conducted, the Agencies
will apply modalities and procedures applicable to a high-risk partner.
The Royal Audit Authority (Bhutan‟s SAI) conducts the Micro Assessment for the UN agencies.
5
2.2 Assurance Activities
Introduction
Assurance activities promote accountability and strengthen the financial management system
and internal control mechanism of the IPs. It will ensure whether funds transferred to the IPs
were used for the appropriate purpose; ensure achievement of project targets and expected
results.
The HACT framework requires the UN agencies to conduct assurance activities based on the
risk level/ratings determined by micro-assessments reports. The specific combination,
frequency and scale of assurance activities for each IP will be determined by risk ratings of the
micro-assessment report of the IPs. For each Implementing Partner, the results of the
assurance activities may lead to changes in the procedures and modalities for disbursing cash
transfers, and the type and frequency of future assurance activities.
There are three mechanisms through which assurance activities will be carried out:
On-site reviews
HACT audits and Special audits (if needed)
Programmatic assurance
2.2.1 On-site reviews of IPs:
The Terms of Reference for On-Site Reviews for the Cash Transfers to the Implementing
Partners was developed jointly with the representatives of the Ministry of Finance (MoF), Royal
Audit Authority (RAA) and GNHC. It determines the scope and the task of the on-site review.
The schedule of the on-site reviews, as well as other assurance activities are reflected in the
RWP once agreement has been reached between the IP and the UN agency on the timeline of
the review.
The scope of on-site site review will be adjusted to the specific needs of each assignment. On-
site review of IPs with internal controls assessed as weak, or made in response to a particular
concern may be more detailed, than those of IPs whose management capacity has been rated
as high.
On-site review may take up from 1 day to 3 days. However, the duration may vary according to the level of expenditures. The review will take place at the IPs location. The on-site review will
be conducted by the UN Interagency On-site Review Team or an external consultant (if needed)
following standard guidelines.
The frequency of the on-site review is based on the risk ratings as shown in the table below:
6
Overall Risk Assessment Frequency of on-site review
High Risk Quarterly
Significant Risk Three times in a year
Moderate Risk Twice a year
Low Risk Once a year
The on-site review team will focus on:
1. Financial transaction
Review a sample transaction of the expenditure reported in the FACE Form to ensure the following:
o Accuracy of the total expenditure with the government records
o Whether expenditure reported in the FACE Form is in line with approved
budget as per RWP
o Liquidation of advance
o Whether fund released by UN agencies is received by IPs within agreed time
frame
2. Procurement
Review the procurement system followed by the IPs
Support the IP in submitting the year-end inventory report through review of inventory management and physical verification.
3. Internal control mechanism
Review segregation of duties/ functions
Internal check and balance
Strengthen the internal control mechanism with consultation with the relevant IP, GNH and other relevant govt. partners
Responsibilities of IPs for the on-site review include:
Facilitation of on-site review by ensuring access to documents, and records;
Provision of clarification as and when requested by the review team during the on-site review
UN Interagency On-site Review Team:
The review team will consist of staff from Programme sections/unit and Operations
section/unit from the relevant UN agencies, and when possible staff from GNHC and Internal
Auditor from the concerned IP. The review team is responsible for informing the exact date and
the members of the on-site review to the IPs and conduct on-site review as per the on-site
review calendar.
Upon the completion of the on-site review, prepare a report containing: 7
o A summary of the findings, with the indication of risks
o A list of transactions tested. For any exceptions the report should list, by
Agency, the payment details, findings and the nature of the exception. o Conduct a meeting with the IP Programme Manager
o Provide recommendations to the IP and get the final comments from the IP.
On-site review reports will be reviewed quarterly by the Interagency HACT Working Group.
The report will be shared with the Head of the Implementing Partner, GNHC and with copies to
the Heads of UN Agencies.
Co-ordination for the On-Site Reviews:
o In case of IPs jointly supported by different UN agencies, the concerned programme
section/unit of the lead UN agency will co-ordinate with concerned IPs and inform
relevant programme colleagues in the other UN agencies, GNHC, and its agency‟s Operations section/unit on the time.
o In case of the specific agency supported IPs, the concerned Programme section/unit of
the UN agency will co-ordinate with concerned IPs and inform GNHC and its agency‟s
Operations section/unit for the exact dates of the on-site review.
2.2.2 HACT Audits
IPs who receive (or are planned to receive) more than $500,000 in cash transfers collectively
from the UN Agencies during the period covered by the cCPAP will be audited once or more
during the programme period. Implementing Partners who receive (or are planned to receive)
less than $500,000 over the programme period may be audited if one or more Agency requires
it.
The Royal Audit Authority (SAI) will conduct the HACT audit of the IPs. Towards this end, the
ToR for HACT audit was developed in consultation with the RAA in compliance with Technical
Note on HACT audit available in the HACT Framework.
Purpose of HACT Audit:
The HACT audit will assess the existence and functioning of an Implementing Partners‟ internal
controls for the receipt, recording and disbursement of cash transfers and the fairness of a sample of expenditures reported in the FACE forms for the period under review.
It will strive to obtain reasonable assurance that:
All cash transfers to the IP and reported expenditures were based on 18 month Rolling Work Plan agreed between the respective IP and the UN agency(ies) within the specified period being audited.
Disbursements are made in accordance with applicable procedures
There is adequate supporting documentation/evidence for the expenses
Balance of OFA as per the IP‟s records agrees with UN agency(ies)‟ records and there is an accurate reconciliation between these two balances
Any major findings of the macro- and micro-assessments, and previous audits, or any observations from on-going programme and financial monitoring have been adequately
8
addressed.
Approach to HACT Audit:
The Interagency HACT Working Group will share the list of IPs to be audited in the next
calendar year with the RAA at the end of the current year. The aim is to align the HACT audit
period with that of the RAA‟s annual audit plan and with the government‟s fiscal year period.
The list will provide the names of the implementing partners including the physical address,
telephone numbers, fax numbers, and relevant e-mail addresses of relevant officials
responsible for the management of the programmes and projects. It also provides the amount
of funds transferred/received till date by the IP
Prior to and during the audit, the audit team will conduct consultations including:
Hold an inception meeting between the auditors, IP and the UN agencies to clarify the objectives and scope of the audit (coordinated by Interagency HACT Group) and brief on
the programme activities of the IPs that will be audited.
Agree on the timeline for submission of the final audit report.
Meet with senior officials of the IP, to understand how cooperation with the UNDG Group Agencies is managed, and any issues of concerns they may have
Upon completion of the draft report, the auditor should first hold a debriefing meeting with the IP, to discuss findings and recommendations for future improvements, as well
as to seek their feedback thereon.
The auditor will then meet with the UN agencies to discuss the draft report prior to its finalization.
The HACT audit will cover the following areas:
Review of the IP‟s programme management system o Review whether activities were implemented as planned and whether activities
deviated significantly from the original work plan(s), establish whether this was by
mutual agreement between the IP and the agency(ies).
o Review the IP‟s system of monitoring progress and review of reports
o Review whether recommendations recorded in the field/project monitoring reports
have been implemented by the IP
Assess the IP‟s internal control system o Review whether internal control system exist to ensure check and balance and in
safe guarding the project resources and assets.
o Review whether segregation of duties exists in the IPs.
o Processes used by the IP for authorizing expenditures and assess whether they are
in accordance with the work plan and authorized by designated authority.
Review of processes followed by IP
o Review FACE forms, including records for requests for direct payments, and
reimbursements to assess whether they were signed by designated officials of the IP
o Assess procurement/contracting of supplies and services to ensure transparency and competitiveness
o Assess use, control and disposal of non-expendable equipment to ensure whether
the equipment procured met the identified needs and used in accordance with its 9
intended purpose
o Assess adequacy for maintaining accurate and complete records of receipt of funds
provided by the UNDG Agency o Review of the FACE forms and perform Transaction Testing
o Assess whether the release from UN agencies received by DPA and review further
release to the IPs and assess the fund balance with DPA and fund balance with the
IP
o Reconcile the expenditure totals, per activity, on the FACE form to the list of
individual transactions (i.e the IP‟s accounting records)
The final audit report should include:
An opinion on the functioning of internal controls
An executive summary with the key findings/observations, risks and recommendations
A summary of the main identified risks to the management of agreed activities and the use of funds provided by the Agencies, arising from weak internal controls
Any identified specific internal control weaknesses in the financial management of the IP
Observations/management response: o Recommendations on how the identified risks may be better managed, how the IP‟s
internal controls can be strengthened. Recommendations should clearly identify those responsible for their implementation within the IP. Comments of the IP
should be included in the report, under the recommendation
o Comments on the follow-up to the recommendations from the previous audits or
assessments and the management response to those
o A list of transactions tested. For any exceptions identified, the report should list the
transaction details and the nature of the exception o If applicable, any „good practices‟ that were developed by the IP and could be shared
with other IPs
o An overall risk rating of the IP‟s internal controls and process to update the micro-
assessment data
The IPs will:
Receive and review the audit report issued by the auditors.
Provide a timely statement of the acceptance or rejection of any audit recommendation concerning the audited projects.
Undertake timely actions to address the accepted audit recommendations.
Report on the actions taken to implement accepted recommendations to both RAA and UN agencies.
The UN Agencies will:
Regularly monitor the implementation of the audit recommendations
The RAA will:
Accept or further recommend actions of the implementation of the recommendations.
Special Audits:. Special Audits will be undertaken when significant weakness is confirmed in
the Implementing Partner‟s internal controls over cash transfers as a result of the on-site
10
review or audit findings. The principle difference between the HACT and Special audit is that
the latter is commissioned to address specific suspected weaknesses and can be implemented
on short notice while the HACT audits are based on annual plan of routine audits.
2.2.4 Programmatic Assurance
Programmatic assurance is maintained following standards and guidance established by each
Agency and includes receipt of implementation reports such as the standard progress reports
(SPR) from Implementing Partners, site visits by UN Agency staff, joint mid-term reviews, joint
annual reviews, and evaluations.
2.3 Funding Authorization and Certificate of Expenditure (FACE) Form
Introduction
The harmonized Funding Authorization and Certificate of Expenditures (FACE) form
simplifies the paperwork to authorize expenditure or transfer cash to Implementing Partners.
The FACE supports several important functions:
Request for funding authorization: The section “Requests / Authorizations” will be used by the Implementing Partner to enter the amount of funds to be disbursed for use in the
new reporting period. Against this request, the Agency can accept, reject or modify the
amount approved.
Reporting of expenditures: The section “Reporting” will be used by the Implementing Partner to report to the Agency the expenditures incurred in the reporting period. The
Agency can accept, reject or request an amendment to the reported expenditures.
Certification of expenditures: The section “Certification” will be used by the designated official from the Implementing Partner to certify the accuracy of the data and information provided.
In the process of certification, the designated official attests to one or both of the following
statements:
That the funding request shown represents estimated planned expenditures as per the common Country Programme Action Plan (cCPAP)/RWP and itemized cost estimates have
been attached and/or;
That the actual expenditures for the reported period have been disbursed in accordance with the cCPAP/RWP and previously approved itemized cost estimates. Further, the designated official attests that the supporting accounting documentation will be made
available, upon request, for a period of five years.
When processing a payment to an Implementing Partner, a copy of the approved FACE should
be returned to the Implementing Partner along with the notice of disbursement, cheque, etc. A
detailed discussion of each segment of FACE follows below.
Overall Approach and Guiding Principles
The FACE is intended to replace all other documentation used by partners for requesting
11
funds and reporting expenditure. Not all sections of the form will be used at all times. For
instance, for an initial disbursement, only the request section of the form will be completed.
For a final payment upon RWP completion, only the reporting section will be used.
The FACE will be used for direct cash transfers, reimbursements to Implementing Partners and direct payments.
No FACE will be processed without the appropriate signature from the designated official.
The FACE is aligned with the RWP. The activities for which funds authorisation is requested, or for which expenditure is reported, will be the activities specified in the RWP.
The FACE is normally certified by the designated official who signs the RWP. In all other circumstances, the RWP will specify any other official authorized to certify the FACE. For
instance, the designated official signing the RWP may be from the central Ministry of Health
while the actual expenditures may be incurred by a regional health office. In such cases,
the RWP should specify whether the central authority will process and sign a consolidated FACE or whether individual FACE forms will be processed by other authorized officials from
the sub-ordinate offices and Implementing Partners. The respective reporting relationship
must be specified in the RWP.
A request for funding included in FACE must be accompanied with an itemized cost estimate of the activities to be funded as per individual Agency guidelines. The nature and
detail of this list can be negotiated at the country level.
The normal disbursement cycle for the FACE will be quarterly.
Components of FACE Form.
2.3.1 Header Area The header area of the FACE allows the Implementing Partner to report on the reason and
12
purpose of the funding/ reporting request. This data is usually needed for correct coding in
financial and management accounting systems.
The specific data elements include:
Name of the Agency
Date of the request
Type of request (direct cash transfer, direct payment, reimbursement)
Country where the programme takes place
Programme title and code (as appropriate)
AWP title and code
Responsible officer(s)
Implementing Partner
Currency of the request/disbursement
2.3.2 Body of the Form
Activity Description: This is a text field containing a short description of the activity as it
appears in the underlying RWP, as well as its duration. This data is normally needed for the
Agency‟s programme or project management systems.
Coding Column: The second column will allow the Agency to enter its own account codes. This
data is required for the Agency‟s financial accounting system. The Agency may enter this data
itself or it may require the Implementing Partner to fill it in. If the latter, the training of the
counterpart staff will be required.
2.3.3 Reporting Area
The FACE is a dynamic form that must balance and reconcile from one reporting period to the
next. The first column on the new form, Column A, therefore repeats the last one, Column G,
from the previously submitted and authorized FACE form. Note that Column C, D, F and G are
shaded. They are blank when the FACE is submitted to the Agency. They are filled out by the
Agency prior to the financial processing of the form. All non-shaded Columns are to be
completed by the Implementing Partner.
Column A – Authorized Amount: Column A will be blank for the first request from an
Implementing Partner. It should include the date of the most recent previous authorization.
Column B – Actual Expenditure: Column B reports the actual expenditures by the Implementing
Partner for the period. The expenditures reported by the Implementing Partner are, at this
point, still subject to review and approval by the Agency. The designated official of the
Implementing Partner is certifying that these expenditures are reported in accordance with the
stipulation of the AWP, CPAP and/or other related agreements with the Agency.
Column C – Expenditures Accepted by Agency: Column C is used by the Agency to review and
approve, reject or request an amendment to expenditures reported by the Implementing
Partner. If the amounts are accepted as reported, no further adjustments to this part of the
FACE or communication with the Implementing Partner about these expenditure is required.
However, if changes are made (e.g., to query or reject a reported expenditure), then the amount
recorded by the Agency in Column C will differ from that reported in Column B. In this case,
the change needs to be communicated with the Implementing Partner.
Column D – Balance: Column D records the balance of funds authorized for use in the reporting
period that remained unspent as of the date of the form. The term unspent can also reflect
expenditures which are either known or ongoing as of the date of the FACE, but which cannot
be certified by the Implementing Partner due to timing or internal reporting delays. The
outstanding balance of funds authorized by activity can be carried forward, reprogrammed or
refunded, depending on the internal policies of each Agency.
14
2.3.4 Requests / Authorizations Area
Column E – New Request Period & Amount: Column E determines the period of the new request,
which is normally contiguous to the last reporting period. The Column contains the requests
for the authorization to spend or receive funds, by activity and for that period. Each time a
request for new or additional funds is submitted, it will be accompanied by an itemized list of
expenditures in line with the AWP. This column can also reflect any balance for an activity in
column D, which is requested for reprogramming. This will reduce the total amount of the new
disbursement request accordingly.
Column F – Authorised Amount: Column F is used by the Agency to establish the amounts of
funds, by activity, to be disbursed for the new reporting period. This Column is filled in by the
Agency. It can be used to accept, reject or modify the amounts requested in Column E. Any
credits for reprogramming will be reflected in this column for reconciliation of the amounts.
Column G – Outstanding Authorized Amount: Column G is the sum of Columns D and F, and
indicates the total outstanding authorized amount. For subsequent period reporting, the
amount of this column will be carried forward to the column A of the new FACE form.
15
2.3.5 Certification Area
The Certification Area is used by the designated official of the Implementing Partner to request
funds and/or to certify expenditures. This area requires a date, the signature of the official
and his/her title.
16
NOTE: IPs are required to submit a delegation of signing authority for the FACE to the
UN agencies and the GNHC. Only the persons identified as the signing authority can sign
on behalf of the IP on the FACE form. Refer Annex 3: Delegation of Signing Authority for
Funding Authorization and Certification of Expenditure (FACE). This form must be
submitted to the UN Agencies and GNHC following the signing of the RWP.
2.3.6 For Agency Use Only Area
Approvals Box: The “For All Agencies” box in the lower left hand corner of the FACE form
should be signed by the appropriate Agency official. This indicates the review and approval of
the request for funds and authorizes the recording of the reported expenditures. The official
should sign, date and provide his/her title.
Accounting Coding Boxes: The remainder of the form is used by Agencies to complete the coding
as required by their financial and management accounting systems. Usage is by individual
Agency.
17
2.3.7 Supporting Documentation to the FACE form
AAggeenncciieess RReeppoorrttiinngg aanndd RReeqquueessttiinngg SSttaannddaarrdd PPrrooggrreessss RReeppoorrtt
((SSPPRR)) AAnnnnuuaall FFiixxeedd AAsssseett
FFoorrmm** FFAACCEE FFoorrmm IItteemmiizzeedd
ccoosstt//SShheeeett
UNICEF
UNDP
UNFPA
WFP Detail
estimates of
activities discussed
with IPs
before FACE
submission.
* Refer Annex 5: Guidance Note on Annual Fixed Asset (Non-Expendable Property Report)
Form
2.3.8 FACE Work flow
Approval PhaseConsultation Phase
IPPrepare
/Revise FACE
Enter UN agency data
Review FACE
UN Agency
Sign FACE
GNHC signature
Yes
No
The FACE work flow has been categorized into two phases: Consultative and Approval.
18
During the Consultative phase, the FACE form is prepared by the IP in consultation with the
concerned UN agency. The UN agency will review the FACE form for the verification of
account/fund codes, accuracy of funds reported and return to the IP for their submission to
GNHC for approval. Both the IP‟s project manager and Finance Officer must sign on the
relevant section of the form before its submission to GNHC.
During the Approval phase, the GNHC reviews the FACE for the appropriate signatures before
endorsing the FACE form and forwarding it to the concerned UN agency for fund
release/reporting.
NOTE TO UN AGENCIES: Once the FACE form has been formally endorsed by the UN agency,
copies of the IP, GNHC and UN agency endorsed form must be shared with the IP and GNHC.
NOTE TO IPs: The fully signed FACE form is required to be made available to the auditors
during the scheduled audit or to the UN Interagency On-site review team during the on-site
review.
Please also refer to Annex 5: Financial Procedures for UN Assisted Projects. The Procedures
provide guidelines for the request and release of funds.
19
Chapter 3 Country Programming Process: Common Country Programme Action Plan
(cCPAP) and the 18 Month Rolling Work Plan (RWP); Standard Progress Report (SPR)
Training Manual Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT)
Introduction
The common country programming process begins with an agreement to adopt a harmonized
programme cycle. The Common Country Assessment (CCA) is the instrument that allows the agencies to identify key development challenges based on existing national analysis. The CCA
is the UN‟s collective analysis and programming in support of national goals and priorities,
including the MDGs. The CCA and UNDAF demonstrate the linkages with national
development plans and strategies. The macro-assessment (as required by the HACT Framework
is conducted at this stage.
Step 1: Agreement on key development challenges
Once CCA has completed and the gaps or opportunities to support national development plans
have been identified, the UN and its partners use that information to design interventions to
address those gaps or opportunities and focus on national capacity building as per the Paris
Declaration and the current aid environment. These responses will be described in the UNDAF
and detailed in the UNDAF Results Matrix.
Step 2: Agreement on common expected results and division of labour
A Joint Strategy Meeting is conducted next to ensure agreement with government. The meeting
allows both the UN and the government to review and validate the Results Matrix, including
identification of opportunities for joint and collaborative programming, monitoring and
evaluation and for wider partnerships, and establishment of thematic groups; and for each
agency to agree on the key outcomes and outputs of its programme of cooperation and its
implementation strategy with government, implementing Ministries and key non-governmental partners.
20
Step 3: Agreement with the government on main programme strategies
Agencies revise/complete and validate CP outcomes and indicative outputs at this JSM in
order to submit their draft Country Programme Documents (CPD) to their Executive Board
Secretariats, with a signed UNDAF to secure resources for the proposal country programme. At this point in the HACT process, micro-assessments, and an inventory of Implementing Partners
are conducted. The micro-assessments involve the identification of the partners to be assessed,
and looks at the soundness of the Implementing Partner‟s financial management system.
Step 4: Secure resources for the proposed country programme
Once the programming planning process is completed, the programme implementation process
begins. Subsequent to the submission, discussion and approval of the country programme, the
common Country Programme Action Plan (cCPAP) is signed between the UN and the
Government. The cCPAP is the UN‟s management plan for its country programme, and it spells
out commitments between the agencies and the government. Specific clauses on cash transfer
modalities, assessments, assurance and use of FACE are incorporated in the cCPAP.
Step 5: Prepare and signed the agreement on the new country programme with the government
The 18 month rolling plans are then developed with the implementing partners to support the
implementation of the country programme.
Step 6: Support the implementation through 18 month rolling work plan with the implementing partners
The Annual Review meetings are organized at the end of the calendar year and takes into
account of findings of the on-site reviews, HACT audits and programmatic monitoring of
activities and results, to plan and sign the next year‟s RWPs. While the financial reporting is
facilitated by the FACE form, the programme results are reported through the common
standard progress reports.
Step 7: Review, adjust and plan for next year
UNDAF Midterm review: The UNDAF mid term review is organized in the middle of the UNDAF
cycle (2010) to review progress against the UNDAF/cCPAP outcomes and to accommodate
emerging priorities. The mid term review includes an assessment of progress made across the
five UNDAF Outcomes based on outcome evaluations, self assessments by the UNDAF theme
groups, and the Country Programme Board progress reports. It is conducted in collaboration
with the GNH Commission. The Mid term Report is endorsed by the Country Programme
Board. The recommendations inform the formulation of the future year rolling work plans as
well as the next UNDAF preparation.
22
The diagram below illustrates the linkages between the common country programme cycle and
its annual implementation cycle:
3.1 Common Country Programme Action Plan
cCPAP is the common Country Programme Action Plan. It specifies the development challenges,
and expected results, budget, implementation strategies, management responsibilities, and
commitments of the government, the 4 UNDG agencies and the participating agencies, and is a
legally binding document for the 4 UNDG agencies.
In Bhutan, the current cCPAP covers the period 2008-2012 (extended to 2013) and
encompasses the planned results of 14 UN agencies (resident and non-resident). It is signed
between the Royal Government of Bhutan and the UN agencies.
The cCPAP is the key reference document for the development of the 18 month rolling work plans. The 18 month rolling work plan forms the basis for filling in the FACE form.
Relevant clauses of the HACT on cash transfer, assurance activities and assessments are
included in the cCPAP.
23
Bhutan‟s cCPAP 2008-2012 (extended to 2013) is available on www.unct.org
Training Manual Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT) 3.2 18 Month Rolling Work Plan (RWP)
The 18 month rolling work plans are prepared every year on the basis of intended results,
strategies, budgets and implementing partners identified in the cCPAP, reflecting on
achievements and lessons learned of the previous year. They set out interventions organized around outcomes, outputs, and/or implementing partners. It covers a period of 18 months starting from January through December to June of the following year. The 18 months RWP was adopted to align the UN’s calendar year system of January to December with the government’s fiscal year system of July to June. The mismatch of 6 months of planning period resulted in not reflecting the UN‟s activities for Jan-
June within the RGoB‟s budget. This in turn resulted with substantial amount of supplementary budget incorporations. The 18 months RWP within the ‘Delivering as One’
approach was devised and adopted which helped in furthering the Aid effectiveness agenda of aligning with the Government‟s system. The approach would also facilitate in continuation of activities in the event of late formulation and signing of next work plan.
The RWP details both the activities to be carried out by Implementing Partners and the
associated budgets. The RWP is the basis for disbursement and efforts that should be undertaken to determine reasonable costing of the planned activities. The RWP should indicate
among other elements, the resource transfer modalities to be applied.
The RWP contains the following:
Expected outputs with indicators, baseline and target 24
Activities to be carried out towards the achievement of the expected outputs
Timeframe for undertaking the planned activities
Indication of the parties responsible for carrying out the activities
Timeframe for the assurance activities, including on-site reviews, HACT audits and programme monitoring
The completion of the activities should over time lead to the achievement of the cCPAP outputs,
which in turn contribute to its outcomes.
The RWP is jointly prepared by the relevant UN agencies and the Implementing Partner usually
at the start of the calendar year following the joint annual review meetings, or at the beginning
of a new project. Once a RWP is agreed between the UN agencies and the IP, it is finalized and
signed by the GNHC, UN agencies and the IP. The RWP should be linked for the UNDAF/cCPAP
M&E Framework, and are the building blocks for the quarterly and annual standard progress
reports.
25
3.3 Standard Progress Report
The Standard Progress Report (SPR) is the progress report generated from the RGoB‟s PlaMS
system within the National Monitoring and Evaluation system. The SPR is designed to facilitate
evidence-based decision making. It describes the progress made towards achieving the
activities, and outputs of the RWP and outlines the contributions made towards the UNDAF
Outcomes of the UNDAF/cCPAP. The SPR also summarizes the key achievements, challenges
faced and proposed recommendations. This report is prepared by the implementing partner
and is submitted every quarter along with the FACE form, and an annual SPR is submitted at
the end of year and is presented by the implementing partner at the annual review meeting.
The completed SPR and the FACE form constitute the basis for reporting on results, financial
liquidation and new request for funds. Refer Annex 6: Guidelines: Standard Progress
Report.
26
Chapter 4
Cash Transfer Procedures
Introduction
Three cash transfer modalities are available to the UN Agencies, within the HACT framework
and as described in the common Country Programme Actions Plan (CPAP):
Direct cash transfers to Implementing Partners, for expenditures to be made by them in
support of activities agreed in the RWP;
Direct payments to vendors and other third parties, for expenditures incurred by the
Implementing Partner in support of activities agreed in RWPs.
Reimbursement to Implementing Partners for obligations made and expenditure incurred
by them in support of activities agreed in RWPs;
Under these modalities, IPs are required to comply with their own financial and procurement rules and regulations for the implementation of activities. All supporting documents will be
maintained with the IP, and will be subject to assurance activities.
Agencies agree on a preferred common modality for each Implementing Partner based on the
micro-assessment of the IP, but each Agency may choose the most appropriate modality for
specific and timebound programmes/activities following endorsement from the GNHC..
Table 1: Responsibilities for Obligations and Payments for Cash Transfer Modalities
Modality Obligation Payment
Direct Cash Transfer Implementing Partner Implementing Partner
Direct Payment Implementing Partner UN Agency
Reimbursement Implementing Partner Implementing Partner
4.1 Harmonized Cash Transfer Procedures
The procedures for transferring cash, including the periodicity of disbursements, reporting on
cash utilization, and maintaining assurance over the accuracy of the reports, are essentially the
same for the modalities. Whenever an Implementing Partner receives cash transfers from more
than one Agency, the Agencies will use the same procedures. All Implementing Partners will
use the same standard format (FACE form) for requesting cash transfers and reporting on their
use. Agencies will continue to account for cash transfers in accordance with their established
polices and procedures.
The basic elements of the cash transfer procedures are:
Basis for disbursements:
The basis for the cash transfer modality, are the activities to be carried out by an Implementing Partner, as described in RWPs;
Implementing Partners will submit a request to the Agency for release of funds or for agreement that the Agency will reimburse or directly pay for a planned expenditure.
This request is part of the FACE form.
Periodicity of disbursements:
Direct cash transfers are expected to be requested and released for programme implementation periods not exceeding three months.
Reimbursements for previously authorized expenditures are expected to be requested and released quarterly or after completion of activities.
Direct payments for previously authorized activities shall be made based on a request signed by a designated official of an implementing partner.
Reporting on cash utilization:
Implementing Partners who receive cash will use the FACE form to report on the utilization of cash received, or to request reimbursement for expenditure already
incurred. A designated official of the Implementing Partner will authorize direct
payments to vendors.
The same FACE form is also used for requesting new transfers, or requesting authorization to incur future expenditure (for reimbursement or direct payment to
vendors).
Cash disbursed but not utilized by the Implementing Partner may be re-programmed by mutual agreement if it is consistent with the purpose and timeframe of the funding
source; or may be refunded.
Cash not utilized for more than six months have to be refunded following the prescribed procedures for refunds to the UN.
Direct Agency Implementation: An additional implementation modality, Direct agency implementation is available under the HACT Framework. Under this modality, the UN Agency
on the request of the IP (following endorsement of the GNHC) implements the activities and
incurs expenditure in support of activities agreed in RWPs.
28
Assurance over accuracy of reporting:
The coverage, type and frequency of assurance activities is guided by the level of risk
associated with the Implementing Partner, as determined through the micro assessment.
Implementing Partners assessed as “high risk” will, when compared to “low risk” partners, be
subject to more frequent on-site review, more frequent and in-depth programmatic monitoring activities, and more frequent audits. Unfavourable findings of assurance activities may result
in a reconsideration of the modalities, procedures and assurance activities for that partner. The
assurance activities will include at least one audit for each Implementing Partner who is
expected to receive a minimum of US$500,000 within the programme cycle.
4.2 CASH TRANSFER FRAMEWORK ON THE PROGRAMME PROCESS
Decisions about the modalities, procedures, and assurance activities for cash transfers are an
integral part of the common country programming process.
7.3.1 Common Country Assessment (CCA) – section on financial accountability
The key findings of the Macro Assessment should be summarized in the CCA. Among them
should be one that specifies areas where national capacity is lacking. While working on
UNDAF, the UNCT should collectively discuss the results of the CCA analysis and agree on
what interventions they may undertake to address the identified gaps and name the Agency
best positioned to do so.
7.3.2 Common Country Programme Action Plan (cCPAP)
The cCPAP sets out the expected key results and strategies of the country programme and
programme management arrangements. For the management of cash transfers the following
should be recorded in it:
the available resource transfer modalities which the Agency and Government agree to utilize;
that applicable procedures depend on risk ratings for transfer of cash to each 29
Periodicity of Disbursement and Reporting
Type
Periodicity of
disbursement Reporting
Direct cash transfer Quarterly FACE
Direct payment to vendors Activity based FACE
Reimbursement of expenses Activity based FACE
Direct agency implementation N/A By Agency
Implementing Partner;
that a (micro) financial capacity assessment will be undertaken for each Implementing Partner;
the principles and scope of the assurance activities;
that cash transfer modalities and procedures applied with a particular Implementing Partner may change subject to experience and the results of assurance activities,
the commitments of both government partners and Agencies for the transfer and utilization of cash resources, reporting, and assurance activities, including audits.
18 Month Rolling Work Plan (RWP)
The RWPs detail both the activities to be carried out by Implementing Partners, and the
associated budgets. The RWP is the basis of disbursements and efforts should be undertaken to determine reasonable costing of the planned activities. The RWP should indicate, among
other elements, the resource transfer modalities to be applied.
Joint Mid-term & Annual Review
Each RWP is subject to a joint mid-term and annual review by the Implementing Partner and
the UN Agency. In the case of joint programmes, the mid-term and annual review is to be
carried out jointly by participating Agencies. This is a good opportunity to also review the
effectiveness of the applied resource transfer modalities and procedures, based on the findings
of the assurance activities undertaken during the year.
30
Annex 1:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Funding Authorization and Certificate of Expenditures (FACE)
1. Will the Agencies have to undertake partner assessments before the FACE can be
used?
Before using FACE, micro assessments for all non-UN Implementing Partners that are expected
to receive more than $100,000 in one year have to be completed. For Implementing Partners
who receive less than $100,000 in one year, Agencies will need to determine the modality and
assurance activities before using the FACE form.
2. Can FACE be used to track monthly expenditures?
Cash transfers should, as a general rule, be requested and released for activities to be
completed within a period of three months. Therefore, FACE should be used to report on the
expenditures incurred over the three months period. In exceptional cases, subject to a joint decision of the local ExCom team, FACE could be used to track monthly expenditures.
3. Preparation of an expenditure report takes some time and the release of funds
based on one and the same report/request form (FACE) might disrupt programme
implementation. Can we increase the first advance to ensure flexibility and
continuous flow of resources?
No, this should not be done. FACE has been designed as a flowing form, which is meant to
provide a cumulative statement of funds disbursed and used/reported on. As the preparation
of an expenditure report will take a certain amount of time, Agencies may release the next
advance/installment based on partial utilization of the previous transfer. If reports of
utilization of funds are outstanding for more than 6 months, disbursements will be stopped.
4. Why 3 months? Is it in line with what other donors do? Are Agencies supposed to
coordinate with donors and other partners locally?
According to Agencies‟ global experience, three months present a good compromise that allows
the tracking of activities, expenditure and results without overburdening partners with too
many reporting obligations.
5. Reporting in a joint programme: is it necessary to use FACE?
Yes, in case of joint programmes FACE should be used.
6. Does FACE provide information on the “age” of balances?
No, FACE only provides information on the totality of balances for each activity line.
7. Will FACE be used to replace UN Agencies’ internal financial reports?
FACE was designed, primarily, to lessen the burden on national counterparts. Internal reporting may be adjusted by Agencies to take advantage of the use of FACE by
v
Implementing Partners.
8. How will the opening balances be recorded on the FACE form?
The first request will be recorded in the “request” columns of FACE (the reporting columns
remain blank). For subsequent submissions, the first column will indicate the cumulative un-
liquidated amounts.
9. What other documents will be used to request funds, record expenditure, or to
liquidate amounts whose use is being reported in FACE?
For funding requests, the „FACE‟ form will have an itemized cost estimate attached.
For expenditure reporting, the „FACE‟ form is the only document required, as all the supporting
documents will be retained with the Implementing Partner.
10. Although FACE should be used for Direct Payments, it does not have a dedicated
space for information related to service providers (i.e. names, account numbers etc.).
What back-up documentation will be needed?
A “Direct Payment” is defined as a transfer of cash to vendors or third parties for obligations
incurred by the Implementing Partners on the basis of requests signed by the designated
official of the Implementing Partner. Thus, the minimum requirement for an Agency to proceed
with a direct payment on behalf of an Implementing Partner for an obligation incurred by this
Partner is an Authorized Request. If FACE is used to request a direct payment and is duly
certified by a designated official of the Implementing Partner (in this case FACE will have the
function of the Authorized Request), no supporting documents are, strictly speaking, required.
An annex can be used to describe the payments to be done, the vendor and its bank details.
Note: Some offices require Implementing Partners to attach supporting documentation to the
request for direct payment and they review this documentation as part of their monitoring
activities. Implementation of HACT is an opportunity to re-think the overall scope of
monitoring and, possibly, discontinue this requirement assuming that adequate assurance can
be achieved through other activities.
11. If there are two cash transfer modalities used with an Implementing Partner, will
this require 2 sets of FACE forms?
Yes, one form cannot accommodate more than one modality.
12. How does one reflect currency of the form?
The FACE form includes an area to record the currency of the transactions. Separate FACE
forms should be prepared for expenditures in each currency. There is no need for laborious
reconciliations of expenditures in different currencies.
13. How does one record gains and losses as a result of currency fluctuations on the
form?
The form is meant only to reflect only local currency values of transactions. Each Agency
vi
has its own procedures for allocating exchange gains/losses to individual projects. Multiple FACE forms may be submitted for multiple currency disbursements. At any given time, the
official levels of expenditures are those recorded in the UN Agency accounts and valued in US
dollars.
14. How is the form filled out?
Implementing Partners fill in the white sections and UN Agencies fill out the shaded sections.
15. How should Agencies keep track of the FACE forms?
There should be a FACE form for each quarter, even if there is no activity. These should be
filed and kept in the country office.
16. FACE appears to assign both the Authorizing/Approving AND Certifying functions to the same person, i.e. the person completing column C is the same person signing the
FACE. Does this contradict the internal control procedures of Agencies that separate
these two functions?
ExCom Agencies have not harmonized their internal control procedures. Division of duties is a
basic internal control point but its method of application and terminology varies between the 4
Agencies.
Most Agencies use a separate voucher to make entries to systems and to capture and evidence
points of internal control and the officers responsible, and to which they routinely attach
supplier invoices and other accounts payable including FACE. We therefore expect this to be
applied by each Agency as they process FACE forms and make appropriate accounting entries
and payments.
In other words, FACE form does not impose a given internal control process, and it does not
prevent each Agency from following its own internal control procedures.
In particular, note that column C of FACE is only used by a UN Agency to accept, reject or modify the expenditures reported by the Implementing Partner. It does not certify the
correctness of the financial statement submitted by the partner.
17. Is there more Agency-specific or DGO guidance for approving officers to accept or not accept expenditure?
HACT expands the more traditional role of checking expenditures against an agreed budget in
the RWP to include programmatic and substantive issues. Through on-site reviews and
programmatic monitoring there is a clearer link between financial accountability and programme results.
To put it more simply, if on-site reviews and ongoing assurance activities indicate that the
programme is being implemented according to plan, then this gives support to the acceptance
of expenditures as reported in FACE form. If there has been no evidence that activities have been carried out as planned, and even if expenditures are within budget, the Agency should
vii
consider rejecting the FACE on the grounds of a lack of adequate programme implementation
by the Implementing Partner.
18. If the Government signs an RWP but Agencies directly support various local entities
(e.g) district offices of the ministry), will each such entity need to submit a FACE?
Entities who receive funds from Agencies will have to request and report on FACE forms. The
signatories on the FACE must also be on the RWP to ensure a consistent approach to
accountability.
19. The Coding column of FACE (2nd column from the left) is not specific enough to
encompass the range of different codes needed. Are modifications possible?
Yes, the coding column can be adapted to specific Agency needs, as long as the basic format of
the form is kept intact.
20. How does one record in the FACE yearly expenditures such as salaries of technical
assistance staff at the ministries?
These expenditures should be authorized and certified quarterly like all other programme
expenses.
21. FACE requires a shift from line budgeting to budgeting based on activities – where
are the aggregate line budgets represented?
The activity budget lines are defined in and come from the RWP.
22. Is the FACE form time-bound? How should Agencies deal with carry-overs?
Any FACE records the available balance plus disbursements meant to cover activities for the
next three months. Any unreported or unliquidated balance as of the year end will have to
show in the first FACE of the new year. Obviously, the RWP of the new year will have to reflect
the activities that the unspent balance is meant to cover.
23. What happens with carry-overs in the last quarter of the programme cycle?
Agencies should discuss with partners during the preparation of RWP for the first year of the
new cycle and re-programme, or reimburse or refund carry-overs to start over at $0.
24. How should Agencies manage FACE with partners and how to handle multiple
amendments over the year?
The process to follow is set forth below:
First, FACE is prepared in hard copy for signature by the certifying officer of the Implementing Partner and by the Agency;
Changes within any given quarter should be noted by hand on the FACE in the Requests/ Authorizations section and shared with partners;
The next quarter‟s FACE is then amended to reflect the change;
vii
Auditors will use a random sample of FACEs for any given partner to assess whether actual expenditures matched reported ones;
Where amendments are expected, the hard copy FACE with notations is an essential part of the paper trail.
25. Which are the key changes in work load for programme staff, when FACE form is
used?
Programme officers are responsible for the management of cash inputs to the programme they
are assigned to. FACE reflects this by requiring those officers to approve / amend / reject
disbursement requests or reported expenditure by signing or not signing the FACE. This does
not represent any change in workload.
Where a programme officer had previously delegated this to someone else, then this improved
working practice would represent an increase in the workload of the programme officer.
26. In a rapidly changing programme environment, does FACE allow Agencies to be
opportunistic and shift resources to new activities?
Yes, FACE does not prevent changes in activities. It merely requires that these changes be
properly approved by Agencies and properly communicated to Implementing Partner, and
reflected in the FACE form.
27. When a UN Agency accepts the expenditure in FACE, does it assume accountability
for these funds? Based on what info, should the Agency accept expenditures in FACE?
UN Agency staff “accept” the expenditure in FACE based on the results of the assurance
activities, including programmatic monitoring. Thus, more attention should be paid to regular
monitoring. Micro assessments are also really important, as they provide the UN team with an
indication of how closely it should monitor the activities of some Implementing Partners. More
staff should be involved in monitoring larger programmes.
28. Who is ultimately accountable for the use of UN funds – an Implementing Partner or
the UN Agency?
It is the Implementing Partner that is ultimately accountable for the funds received, unless a
direct agency implementation has been chosen as a cash transfer modality. Nonetheless, UN
staff who authorize transfers of cash to Implementing Partners and certify expenditures should
exercise due diligence when authorizing additional transfers. Agencies will also be accountable
for ensuring proper assurance.
29. The implementing partner can request a direct payment to a supplier on its behalf.
Who is accountable for such transaction? Should UN Agencies insist on the submission
of key supporting documentation, e.g. a contract, invoice, etc.? Otherwise, what
grounds would the Agency’s office have to agree to pay?
In case of direct payments, vouchers are not entered in the books of the Implementing Partner.
viii
Hence, when the IP is audited, the respective transactions will not be subjected to audit
scrutiny. Such payments will be audited by the internal audits of Agencies and, thus, some
Agencies prefer to still request supporting documents, even though HACT does not have such a
requirement.
30. Will anything change in the way offices record advances of funds in their ERPs
with the introduction of FACE?
No, no changes are envisaged.
31. Should NGOs be included in the list of signatories of FACE (for example, in cases
when the signature of FACE needs to be delegated to an NGO by a Ministry responsible
for implementation, i.e. an NGO is a sub-implementer)?
FACE should be signed by the signatory of the RWP. In case the signature of FACE form is
delegated to a different institution‟s official, a proper designation of such responsibility should
be done.
32. Should the principle of a FACE per each Direct Payment apply? This may lead to a
large number of FACEs to be prepared. How to keep track of them? Should FACEs be
numbered?
It is possible to have several requests for direct payment included into one FACE. In this case
the FACE will have several attachments specifying necessary banking and other info for each
direct payment.
33. Some teams suggested removing the yellow color from the CODE BUDGET box. They
believe this should be filled in by the partners. Could/Should this be done?
The code-box should remain yellow, as it would not be in the spirit of simplification and
reduced transaction costs if the partners would have to learn UN coding of activities. Even if it
is the Implementing Partner that completes the code-box, a UN staff should verify the
accurateness.
34. There is a proposal, in the box in the right lower corner, to add a Reference to the
Receipt, so the beneficiary may be able to trace the reason for the payment.
Could/Should this be done?
It would be useful to make a reference to a check or a voucher number, rather than a receipt.
This could be done in an Annex to FACE rather then on the form itself.
35. Can an Agency office add monthly columns to FACE, especially in situations when
payments are made in local currency (this is particularly important for Atlas users
required to record payments in Atlas in the same month when they were made.
ix
Atlas makes the calculation on gain/loss on exchange)?
This will not be advisable. Rather Implementing Partners and UN Agencies should agree on a
more frequent schedule of requests for transfers and reports.
36. Can cash advances be given more frequently than quarterly, i.e. in countries with
very high inflation rates, or in situations when the Implementing Partner runs out of
money and needs a new (and many times urgent) advance?
Yes, it is possible, if the funds transferred previously are spent and duly reported on.
37. Should a summary statement by budget line/account be attached to FACE?
No, there is no expectation that such a statement should be provided.
ASSESSMENTS
1. What is the accountability for accepting the results of micro-assessments (both checklists A and B). In case of negative audit observations, will blame fall on the
Country Team, especially where the results of the micro-assessment had not been
formally agreed on?
Assessments should be done in consultation with the partner itself. There should be no
surprises. Implementing Partners should be allowed to rebut the findings and present any
mitigating controls that they may have implemented. Assessments and audits can also be the
basis for financial capacity development initiatives. Based on the results of the independent
assessments and other information, Agencies, decide on the modality to be used and assurance
activities to be implemented. It is important that there is evidence of due diligence by COs in
addressing the weaknesses revealed during an assessment or audit.
2. Checklist B seems to be very complex, bordering on the time requirements of an
audit. The $5,000 estimate appears to be low, based on discussions between some Agencies and accounting firms. For many of the countries the micro-assessments
will incur huge programme costs.
The amount of US$5,000 is indicative and is sure to differ from region to region, from country
to country. As in some countries micro assessments could indeed be much more expensive,
country teams should use their best judgment to prioritize the partners that should be
assessed first (e.g. joint partners; partners receiving more cash, partners that have experienced
significant management or other changes in the recent past, partners with which Agencies
have limited experience)
Note that Checklist B is not required for partners estimated to receive less than 100,000$ per
year. Also note, that the assessment and resulting follow up actions or assurance activities are
part of our efforts to strengthen the capacities of Implementing Partners.
x
3. How will micro-assessments be conducted in an environment where there are many
sub-partners? For example, if a national ministry signs the RWP, and the
programme is implemented through a provincial coordinating authority, several provincial sectoral authorities, and district/village authorities, how can a micro-
assessment for $5000 cover all these levels? Furthermore, is it reasonable to expect
the AWP signatory to agree to be accountable for the performance of the lower
levels?
The signatories of the RWP will also be signing the related FACE. All partners who receive
funds and report on their use by submitting FACEs are subject to micro assessments,
regardless of any hierarchical relationship that connects them to other sub-partners. In
situations where a Ministry signs the RWP and provides FACEs, the sub-partners are not
subject to micro-assessments. Degree of decentralization and controls exercised over
contractors will most likely be an input to the assessment.
4. Is there a global list of already assessed international NGOs? Can it be shared?
ExCom Agencies do not have one centrally approved list of international NGOs that have gone
through an assessment of their management of funds systems.
If an Agency-funded project in a country is to be implemented by an international NGO it is
advisable to first check whether this NGO has an accreditation with any of the ExCom
Agencies‟. But even in this case it would be important for the country team to form an opinion
of the NGO‟ internal control system and check whether there is a well-established link between
its HQs and local branches. If local branches are being monitored by the NGO‟s HQs and the
latter is ultimately responsible for the use of funds, then no assessments/audits of local
braches would be required. If the operations standards for local branches are not set by the
NGO‟s HQs and they operate as independent entities than the standard assessment and audit
policy and procedures should apply.
5. Should UN Agencies conduct a micro-assessment if there is a very recent audit of the Implementing Partner done by the SAI?
If the SAI was confirmed through a macro assessment as suitable, the findings of such an
audit could substitute in part or in full for a micro assessment. Any major issues not covered
by the audit would then have to be covered in a shortened or truncated micro assessment.
In practice, if the audit produced largely positive result, a few follow up points might be
needed. If the audit was rather critical, the remaining uncovered points would have to be
checked more carefully.
6. What if the results of the macro assessment are adverse?
The objective of the macro assessment is to get an understanding of the environment in which
the Implementing Partners and the UN operate, and to provide an input into the decision on
whether or not to rely on the Supreme Audit Institution. It is based on the review of the
existing assessments conducted by other development partners and donors, of which
Governments are usually well aware. It is important to remember and highlight in the UN
meetings with Governments that no formal rating will be given to a country based on the xi
macro-assessment. Even if the findings are adverse, they will identify opportunities for capacity
development, determine whether or not to use the Supreme Audit Institution, and influence the
choice of the modality of transferring cash and the scope of assurance measures to be applied
7. What if the Government is not happy with the results of the macro assessment?
The macro assessment is a desk review of the existing analyses by other partners, which are
often done by the WB. Relevant exercises are usually participatory and involve Governments.
Thus, there should not be major problems with quoting findings that have already been agreed
to.
8 What if there is no assessment of the national public financial management system
done for a country? Does the UN team have to do it itself?
No, UN Agencies should not undertake such an assessment themselves. If no national
assessment is available, the UN team should advocate - with Government and with
organizations that carry out the primary work such as the World Bank and some of the
bilaterals - for one to be organized.
9. What if the results of the micro assessment of some Implementing Partners are not
favorable? Is the UN team still going to cooperate with such partners?
Micro assessments provide a basis for decisions on how Agencies will transfer cash to
Implementing Partners as well as on the frequency and scope of assurance activities. They are
not meant to impose any kind of conditionality and, thus, do not prevent Agencies from
cooperation with partners with less than perfect internal control systems.
10. What if the Implementing Partner does not agree with its assessment?
Micro-assessments should rely on work already done as long as they are consistent with the
HACT guidance. If the UNCT has to carry out the micro assessment, it should be carried out
in a participatory manner, with Agencies working closely with the partners that are being
assessed throughout the assessment process. It is important to remember and remind partners
that a micro assessment is an important capacity development exercise, and thus it is in the
interests of both the UN team and the Implementing Partners to openly identify problems that
might exist and cooperate to try to solve them. Partners should also know that if the assurance
activities yield positive results, the intensity of assurance activities may be reduced in the
future.
11. Will the assessments help UN teams understand why some partners have
continuous problems with absorbing resources and outstanding advances? Will they
indicate whether a partner is equipped to ensure the achievement of the planned
results?
It is expected that a micro-assessment will provide a comprehensive review of the selected
Implementing Partners‟ financial management practices and their ability to properly account
for resources received. These assessments, however, will not deal with the partners‟ technical
capacity to effectively implement planned activities and ensure the achievements of planned
results. Other tools should be used to get that information.
xii
12. How frequently should the assessments be done, to keep them relevant?
Assessments are to be done once in a programme cycle, or as agreed by the UN team in cases
of major changes pertaining to a particular partner. Assessments will be updated based on the
results of audits.
13. Do we have to assess all NGOs that receive more than US$ 100,000?
Yes, NGOs should be assessed just as government Implementing Partners. Exceptions might
include international NGOs, with whom a collaboration agreement exists at HQ level.
14. Are there mechanisms to help the 4 ExCom Agencies in the field to determine which
Implementing Partner gets more than US$ 100,000?
Each country team must find the most effective mechanism of predicting and tracking budgets
and resources provided by UN Agencies to Implementing Partners.
15. Will micro assessments be conducted individually by each Agency?
Where two or more Agencies plan to work with the same partner, assessments should be
organized jointly, as much as possible. But if there is only one Agency working with a
particular partner, this Agency will conduct an assessment and share the results with other
Agencies. The results should be “stored” in a common database accessible to all Agencies.
16. Who should cover the assessments costs?
The cost of the assessments will be covered from programme resources of ExCom Agencies and
should be budgeted for in accordance with the respective procedures of individual Agencies.
The total cost should be pro-rated between Agencies in accordance with the resources provided by them to the Implementing Partner.
17. Does there have to be a time-lapse between re-engaging an audit or consulting firm
(for conducting audits or assessments)?
No, no such time-lapse is required.
18. What if UN Agencies disagree on the level of risks?
Agencies could first agree on the criteria for assessing risks, then have the partners assessed
against these criteria. This is what the “Checklist B” is trying to do. Using such a Checklist
may prevent vastly different assessments of risk.
19. If the TOR of the macro assessment is extended to cover some of the key government
institutions and the results are positive, could the UN team do without micro-
assessments of the government implementing partners?
Macro and micro assessments are two different types of assessments that cover different kinds
of questions. Thus, it does not seem possible to combine them. Having said this, macro- and
xiii
micro assessments can be conducted simultaneously, if necessary, although their findings
should be kept separately since they are used for different purposes.
20. In case of regional projects, which partners should be assessed, if at all?
Micro assessment should be conducted, as a general principle, of all partners – local or
regional – that receive more than US$100,000 per year from an Agency.
21. If it is the Government that is providing resources to the UN for implementation,
should Agencies still assess government partners?
In case it is a UN Agency that acts as an Implementing Partner for a government-funded
project, no assessments are required. Assessments are only to be organized for partners to
which this UN Agency will transfer cash further, unless otherwise stipulated in the agreement
with the government providing funds for the project.
22. Is there any flexibility regarding the implementation of HACT for on-going multi-
year projects for which the management arrangements, incl. cash transfer modalities,
are already determined? Should the micro-assessments of the implementing partners
be organized and management arrangements reconsidered in order to start using FACE
and a new assurance framework?
Yes, before FACE is used and a new assurance framework is implemented the micro
assessment is required. This should be done before the new RWP is signed with the partner. In
case there is less than a year before the end of the project, no changes in cash transfer
modalities, etc. are recommended.
23. Could the macro assessment be conducted after the implementation of HACT is
started and the micro assessments are organized?
It is possible, but not recommended, given the objectives of macro assessments.
24. Can a recent audit of an IP serve in lieu of a micro-assessment? How can this
decision be formalized?
Indeed, the results of an audit can be used in lieu of a micro assessment in case its TOR covers
all issues that would be normally covered by a micro assessment. But in any case audit results
constitute a very important input into micro assessments and, if available, should be
considered.
25. Can a certificate, received from the SAI and proving that a certain IP has a reliable
internal control system, replace a micro-assessment?
No. Micro assessment yields important management info about the strengths and weaknesses
xiv
of the IP‟s internal control systems, which would most probably not be covered sufficiently in
such a letter from the SAI.
26. When an IP receives less than USD 100,000, should Agencies assume a high risk
level, if no assessment is conducted? Or are Agencies free to apply any risk rating?
In such cases, assurance should be linked to the amount of cash provided to the partner and
the perceived risk. The lower the amount of funds, the lower the risks, as the eventual losses
are smaller too. In case the UN team decides to conduct micro assessments for such partners,
it is possible.
27. How confidential should the micro assessment reports be?
Micro assessment is a Partner‟s report and the UN should not share it with donors and others,
unless explicitly agreed by the Partner.
28. How would country offices know whether an Implementing Partner has a global
agreement and, thus, should not be assessed? Who in HQs or regional offices should be
addressed?
Agencies have global agreements with some NGOs and it is advisable to verify with HQs
whether there is an agreement with a specific NGO when the local office intends to cooperate
with it. Also, should an NGO have a global agreement with one of the UN Agencies, this
agreement should be acceptable for the other Agencies as well.
APPLICATION OF HACT
1. The Framework document does not address in detail the use of HACT in emergency
situations. How can Agencies respond quickly to unforeseen emergencies, and still use
HACT?
If the country experiences a sudden emergency and a micro assessment has to be delayed,
Agencies can still transfer cash to Implementing Partners, but have to assume “high risk”
followed by more frequent assurance activities. Where the new procedures have been adopted,
they will continue to be applied even when an unstable situation arises. The framework does
not apply to WFP‟s programme categories of protracted relief and recovery operations.
2. How is HACT applicable to programmes funded by cost sharing, including with
government, trust funds and other non-core funds?
Harmonized programming procedures, including HACT, are applied regardless of funding
modality or source of funds.
xv
3. Can the Agency maintain “old” procedures, if:
cash is currently provided to Implementing Partners on a reimbursement basis;
there is only one Agency working with an Implementing Partner?
No, in both cases the new procedures will apply. On the second point, UNDG ExCom Agencies
have generally had requirements for capacity assessments of Implementing Partners. HACT
provides a systematic tool to make these assessments.
4. If ExCom Agencies work with the same partner, do they have to use the same
modality(ies)?
Ideally, ExCom Agencies should strive to use the same modality when they work with the same partner. However the final decision on the choice of the modality is to be taken by each Agency,
based on the type of programme and the Agency‟s experience in working with this partner.
Agencies may always change the modality in response to the level of detected risks.
In addition, when working with the same Implementing Partner, a mix of modalities can be
used. For example a UN Agency may provide direct cash transfers to an Implementing Partner for local expenditures but the Implementing Partner may request the UN Agency to directly
implement international procurement.
5. What should the UN team do if channeling UN resources through an Implementing
Partner’s systems could impede overall effectiveness due to their admitted
ineffectiveness or corruption?
More frequent and more comprehensive assurance activities are expected to mitigate risks
associated with transferring cash to Implementing Partners with low financial management
capacity. Agencies can also review the choice of modality based on the assessment of risks and
potential difficulties.
6. How could the non-ExCom Agencies get involved in using harmonized procedures at
the country level?
The new harmonized approach to cash transfers is binding for the four UNDG ExCom Agencies,
once introduced in the country concerned. Other Agencies should be strongly encouraged to
participate in the use of at least some of the new tools, in particular macro and micro
assessments. The results of the latter can help non-ExCom Agencies in designing and
negotiating their programmes or projects with governments. A requisite for transferring cash
under the harmonized procedures is the use of RWP or similar instruments.
7. Who will cover the cost of the counterparts’ training?
Where possible, the Implementing Partner should bear the training costs. Otherwise,
trainings/briefings for partners will have to be financed from programme resources. Where common partners will be trained, the costs will be shared by Agencies. A set of standard
training materials for partners will be available.
xvi
8. How can the new approach be applied to cooperation with international NGOs?
For many international NGOs global agreements may already exist with Agencies, in which
case no micro assessment will be required. Otherwise, the country-based office of NGOs
should be assessed. Assurance activities, including programme monitoring activities, should be conducted for NGOs as for any other Implementing Partner.
9. Will the new approach be used to manage regional projects?
Regional projects are usually implemented through RWPs with clearly identified
Implementing Partners. The harmonized approach does apply to such situations and
regional bureaus of Agencies should coordinate with local teams. Whoever receives funds
will have to use FACE, and will be subject to assurance activities.
10. Does HACT apply to situations when Agencies pool funding? How?
If a “pool” refers to a UN joint programme/project with pooled funding, where the managing
agent provides cash to a national Implementing Partner, then HACT applies. The macro
and micro-assessments should be conducted as appropriate, and assurance mechanisms
and a cash transfer modality should be agreed to among the participating Agencies. The
Managing Agent will administer the pooled funds, including processing FACE forms, on
behalf of the participating Agencies, and reporting back to them, as agreed. Please refer to
the UNDG Guidance Note on Joint Programmes for more info about the role of the
Managing Agent.
11. How and whether HACT should be used for direct budget support?
Work is currently ongoing to look at the role of the UN system in direct budget support and
the mechanics of its involvement. The current prevailing opinion is that, with its limited
resources, the UN should not be a major financial contributor to direct budget
support. Given its mandate, the UN would have different roles in a DBS setting, other than
just contributing funds. It would support capacity development, data collection, new policy development, advocate for policy changes, conduct communication campaigns, etc.
12. How do HACT procedures apply to sector support programmes (SWAps)?
The UNDG guidance note on UN support to sector programmes states: “The role of the UN
system in relation to SWAps is not that of a traditional donor. Neither will the UNCT always
be wholly aligned with all parts of government. The effectiveness of the UNCT will ultimately
depend on the extent to which it can act as a neutral broker and arbitrator, helping to
manage negotiations and providing solid, evidence-based policy advice with a legitimacy based on the UN international experience, normative and human rights-based work and
access to best practice.”
The financial input of UN Agencies into a SWAP would normally be insignificant, compared
to those of the lending institutions or bilaterals. As explained in the definition above, the
role of the UN is rather to ensure that the SWAP is a "good"' SWAP, i.e. that it is well planned and in conformity with the MDGs and internationally agreed standards,
conventions and declarations.
xvii
If the UN Agency has decided to financially support a SWAP, it should ideally be
operationalized through a workplan that fulfills the requirements of the AWP (i.e.
annualized portions of the workplan subject to joint planning and annual review, clearly
spelt out annual results, activities and Implementing Partners for those activities). In other
words, where the SWAP is operationalized through a single AWP-type workplan that lists
the contributions of all participating donors and UN Agencies, then HACT procedures can and should apply.
If an assessment of an Implementing Partner has been done in the formulation of a SWAP,
and that assessment is consistent with the HACT guidance, that assessment should be
used by the UNCT as the common assessment.
13. Will HACT compromise future fundraising potential, because donors may see it as
the UN losing control over programme expenditures and cannot ensure proper
accountability?
HACT, and in particular the use of FACE, shifts the focus from tracking expenditures to
tracking the attainment of results. These are the Implementing Partners that have greater
accountability for funds, with Agencies being no longer responsible for very detailed
expenditure reports. Reasonable assurance that (1) the funds are disbursed to an
Implementing Partner based on a careful analysis of this Partner‟s capacities; (2) funds are
used by the Implementing Partner for the planned activities; and (3) the planned results
(outputs and outcomes) are achieved, should satisfy necessary accountability requirements
vis-à-vis donors.
14. Is it possible to have a mix of cash transfer modalities to implement different
activities in the same project?
Yes, it is possible. Different FACE forms should be used for different cash transfer
modalities.
15. Are the Agencies’ financial policies reflecting HACT provisions? If not, when will
this be done? What about and programme guidelines?
HACT does not have implications for the Agencies‟ financial rules and regulations. The
financial and audit policies and procedures are being modified accordingly and will be
finalized until the end of 2007. In the meantime, provisions of HACT as an inter-agency
policy supersede the provisions of agency-specific policies.
16. Will there be more detailed guidelines on processes and tools?
Check the http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=255 website for updated technical notes and
learning materials.
A variety of PowerPoint Presentations and other communications and learning materials are
available on the UNDG website to help UNCTs work through the what / why / when / how
of the new approach.
The Agencies are adapting their existing policies, procedures and regulations to conform to
the provisions of the harmonized approach. Therefore, staff will be able to obtain needed
clarifications and support, and can raise concerns through their Agencies‟ established
xviii
support and oversight channels. A list of Agencies‟ HQs and regional focal points for queries
are posted on the UNDG Website.
17. When is HACT compliance achieved?
HACT compliance is achieved when:
Macro assessment has been completed or high risk has been assumed
All partners receiving 100 000 USD (or limit set by the agencies at the country level) collectively from UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and WFP (and any other agencies that have
agreed to adopt HACT in the country) have been micro assessed or high risk has been
assumed for implementing partners where micro assessment couldn‟t be completed
There is agreement on HACT implementation with the government either in the CPAPs or through exchange of letters
Assurance and audit plan of implementing partners has been developed and implementation mechanisms agreed upon
Since HACT is a harmonized approach among UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA and WFP, if any of
them at the country level does not meet the above criteria, compliance is not achieved.
The Resident Coordinator along with the Representatives of the individual agencies certifies
that the above steps are complete and that the UNCT is HACT compliant. The Resident Coordinator should also inform the relevant Regional Directors‟ Team (with a copy to
Development Operations Coordination Office) once the UNCT becomes HACT compliant.
18. How should HACT (assessments, FACE, assurance) apply to joint projects with
pooled funds not only by UN Agencies but by several donor organizations? Is HACT
applicable to multi-donor trust funds?
HACT is fully applicable to any situation when UN Agencies provide cash to implementing
partners, including in joint programmes. HACT clauses and any special conditions should
be spelled out in the Letter of Agreement with donors and Memorandum of Understanding
between Agencies.
xix
Annex 2:
HACT in Bhutan- Milestones
2006
- Two UN staff trained on HACT
- Introduction of HACT to then Department of Aid and Debt Management, MoF
- Core group on HACT formed
- Macro-Assessment conducted and added as an annex in the UNDAF 2008-2012
2007
- Orientation to HACT for UN Staff
- Interagency HACT Working Group formed
- Orientation to HACT for RGoB
- Agreement reached with RAA to conduct Micro-assessment
- Micro-assessment initiated
- Clauses on HACT included in the cCPAP 2008-2012
- 10 micro-assessment completed
2008
- 10 micro-assessment completed
- Annual Work Plan operationalized by all UNDG agencies
- FACE form rolled out
- HACT training to IPs initiated
- UN agencies agree to pilot the government‟s draft Standard Progress Report format as
the programme results reporting (to be submitted with the FACE form)
2009
- First Joint Assurance Plan developed (to be updated annually)
- CPB passes decision to make the HACT training an annual event
- Drafted on-site review Terms of Reference
- Guideline on Financial Procedures for UN Assisted Projects developed
- Annual HACT training organized
- Interagency M&E Working Group merged with M&E Group
- Guideline for joint annual review reporting on results at the cCPAP output and outcome
levels developed
- Training on RBM for UNTG co-chairs (both UN and government)
- Review of the UNDAF/cCPAP M&E Framework initiated
2010
- Bhutan‟s declared HACT compliant
xx
- Scheduled/HACT audit ToR finalized
- Scheduled/HACT audit Inception meeting organized for RAA
- Internal control checklist developed in consultation with RAA for HACT audit
- 6 HACT audits completed
- On-site review TOR and tools finalized
- Onsite reviews for 23 IPs completed
- 7 micro assessments completed
- Micro-assessment/peer review of RAA to be completed.
- UNDAF/cCPAP M&E Framework finalized
- UNDAF/cCPAP Mid term review completed
o Evaluations completed
o Self assessments
- Technical inputs provided for the UNDAF Mid Term Review process and tools
- Draft Manual on HACT developed
- Annual HACT Workshop
- HACT Progress presented to the Country Programme Board
- Annual Fixed Asset Form finalized
2011
- Special audit ToR finalized
- 9 HACT audits, 2 special audits
- 6 micro-assessment completed
- Onsite reviews for 19 IPs completed
- Updated the UNDAF/cCPAP M&E Framework to incorporate recommendations from the
UNDAF mid-term review
- Evaluations/sector reviews
- Guidance templates prepared for annual review meetings and Country Programme
Board
2012
- 2 micro-assessments to be completed
- Onsite reviews for 35 IPs to be completed
- 1 HACT and 1 Special audits to be completed
- Conduct HACT training
- HACT manual published
- Support development of UNDAF 2014-2018 results matrices formulation
xxi
Annex 3:
Delegation of Signing Authority
for Funding Authorization and Certificate of Expenditure(FACE) Form
of UN Projects, Bhutan
Programme/Work Plan Title: ………………………………..
Project code and Title : ………………………………….
Implementing Partner :…………………………………..
To whom it may concern:
By means of this letter, I ………………………………………… (the Delegating Official) delegate the
authority here in described to ………………………………… (the Delegate) of
…………………………………… (Ministry/ Department/Agency), on the following terms and
conditions:
1. The delegate may sign, on my behalf, for expenditure reporting and the new funds
requests in the FACE form of the above project/Work Plan.
2. The effective date of this delegation is ……………………..and shall run until the project is
complete, or until it is revoked by the delegating official.
3. In the event the authorised person is not available (being out of duty station or on
official missions) during the implementation/ reporting period the Officiating person will
sign the expenditure reporting and the new funds requests in the FACE form of the
above project/Work Plan. A copy of the office order designating the Officiating person
will be attached with the FACE form.
………………………………………………
Signature (Delegating Official)
………………………………………….
Name and Title
Date: ………………………..
Sample signature of the delegated official(s):
…………………………………..
Signature
……………………………………..
Name and title
Date: ………………………….
ANNEX 4:
GUIDANCE NOTE ON NON-EXPENDABLE PROPERTY REPORT
Definitions:
The definition of an assets is ; any property or equipment purchased by programme or
administrative fund or donated in kind by third parties (including but not limited to private
donors, non-governmental organizations, other United Nations agencies or government ) is
under agencies control and for which;
Acquisition cost (Free on Board (FOB)) is US$1,000 or more per unit at the time of
purchase, and The asset has a service lifetime of at least three years.
The definition of the „attractive items / Non-capital assets‟ are those items, irrespective of value
and lifetime, that are considered to be easy to remove from the office and are valuable to
individuals for private use or easily convertible into cash or valued between below US$1000. They are also termed as Custodial Items.
Some examples of attractive items are;
i. Laptop computers ; ii. Scanner;
iii. Printers;
iv. CD burners, external hard drives, or other portable computer equipment;
v. CD/DVD/VHS player;
vi. Film/Video/Digital cameras;
vii. Cellular phones; viii. Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs).
Scope
The Annual Assets (Non- expendable property report) form apply to recording , use, security,
control , maintenance ,disposal, and theft of all UN agencies-owned and controlled assets and
attractive items/non-capital assets, whether purchased by UN agencies or obtained through a
pro-bono contribution.
General Principles
Those responsible for UN agencies assets management are to be guided by the following
principles;
i. Ensure integrity and accuracy in financial and administrative recording of assets;
ii. Ensure the security of all assets;
iii. Promote due care and attention to the maintenance of assets;
iv. Safeguard UN agencies interests in the disposal of assets.
The form supports several important functions:
xxiii
Header Area:
UN AGENCY:..…………………..
ANNUAL FIXED ASSETS (NON-EXPENDABLE PROPERTY REPORT) FOR THE YEAR IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:……………………….
PROJECT ID:………………………..…………………
WORK PLAN TITLE/YEAR :……………………
Body of the Form:
Date of Receipt: The section “Date of Receipt” will be used by the implementing partner
to enter the actual acquisition of assets date.
Equipment, Description & Quantity: The section “Equipment, Description & Quantity”
will be used by the Implementing partner to enter the details specification of the asset
procured and the quantity/number of goods.
Serial No: This section “Serial Number” refers the manufacturing coding inscribed to
identify the good‟s production date and the coding.
Tag/Inventory No: Refers to the inventory/asset‟s number allotted by the assets
manager to identify it easily when referred.
Cost / Currency: Refers to the cost of the goods paid as the final payment or value of the
goods.
Responses Person/Entity: Refers as the assets issued in the name of the concern
personnel or the entity for use.
Location: Refers to as the location of the assets placed.
Remarks: this section is used to indicate the field assessment on the condition of the
assets.
xxiv
UN AGENCY:..…………………..
ANNUAL ASSEST (NON-EXPENDABLE PROPERTY REPORT) FOR THE YEAR …………….
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:………………………. PROJECT ID:………………………..…………………
WORK PLAN TITLE/YEAR :……………………
Date of
Receipt
Equipment Serial No. Tag/Inventory
No.
Cost /
Currency
Respons
Person/Entity Location
Remarks
Description Quantity
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned authorized officer of the above-mentioned organization hereby certifies that the property shown above is in the
custody of the implementing agency.
Name: …………………………………… Signature: ………………………………..
Title: …………………………………….. Date submitted: …………………………
Annex 5:
Financial Procedure for UN Assisted Projects
BUDGETING
Incorporation of New Funds/additional activities of AWP
1.1 New Funds refers to those funds for projects/workplans signed after the finalization of
RGoB‟s annual budget for the fiscal year, i.e. 1st July to 30th June.
Upon signing of Project Agreement/Workplan between RGoB and the UN, the
Implementing Agency shall submit a request for incorporation of project budget for the
fiscal year (1st July to 30th June) to GNHC Secretariat. The request for supplementary
incorporation of funds shall be submitted in Budget Form VIII (attached, but can also be
obtained from AFD or DNB). The Implementing Agency should ensure that Budget Form
VIII is completed in all respect and the Financing Item Code (FIC), Activity Code (AC),
Expenditure Code (EC), amount to be incorporated etc. are reflected correctly. GNHC can
provide FIC code, and DNB on AC and EC for new projects
1.2 After reviewing the request for incorporation, GNH shall forward the request to the
Department of National Budget (DNB), with copy to the Implementing Agency and DPA. The Implementing Agency shall follow-up with the DNB directly, based on the copy of
GNHC‟s letter.
Sl.
No. Activity
Responsible
Agency
Number of Working Days
From the Time Received by
the Office
1. Request for Incorporation of Budget
to GNHC
Implementing
Agency
Within 7 days after signing of
AWP/PD
2. Review by GNHC and submission to
DNB
GNHC 2 days
3. Review and incorporation of budget DNB 3 days
Number of working days on the assumption that all required documents are submitted
by the concerned agency.
2. Incorporation of ongoing support
2.1 Ongoing support refers to signed workplans for which funds has been committed by UN agencies.
2.2 The Implementing Agency/Project Managers should prepare the budget proposal for the workplan based on the government format and ensure that the funds are incorporated in
the Agency‟s/Ministry‟s budget proposal for the coming government fiscal year for further
xxvi
submission to the DNB (notifications for budget calls and deadlines for submission of
budget proposals are issued by DNB in December/January every year). The funds
proposed for incorporation should be in line with the approved workplan/project document
and balance funds available.
Sl.
No.
Activity Responsible
Agency
Number of
Working Days
From the Time
Received by the
Office
1. Submission of project fund budget to
IA finance division.
Project Management Refer Budget Call
Notification or
check with Finance
Division for
deadlines.
2. Incorporation of Project Fund budget
in IA‟s budget proposal for the FY
Finance Div. of IA‟s
3. Submission of budget proposal for
the FY to DNB
Implementing
Agency
Number of working days on the assumption that all required documents are submitted
by the concerned agency.
REQUEST AND RELEASE OF FUNDS
1. Request of Funds from Implementing Agency to the UN and release of funds from the
UN to DPA
1.1 Immediately upon signing of a workplan, the Implementing Agency shall submit a copy of the FACE form to the UN agency for verification of fund codes etc. When verified, the
Implementing Agency will request for release of funds for the 1st quarter (January to March)
in FACE form to GNHC. GNHC shall, after reviewing the request, forward the request to the
UN for release of funds. The requests shall clearly state the title of the workplan, name of
the requesting agency, the requested amount in accordance with the signed workplan.
1.2 UN shall, after having reviewed the request, directly forward the cheque to
Department of Public Accounts in favour of Budget Fund Account indicating the
Implementing Partners, Project Name and Financing Item Code (FIC) who in turn shall deposit to Government Budget Fund Account. This is amended since the
Government Financial Rules and Regulations (FRR) does not allow other entity to
deposit cheques to BF Account other than DPA. UN shall share a copy of the
forwarding letter with DCD GNHC, DNB and the Implementing Agency. It was
agreed that DPA will send the acknowledgement of cheques to UN with copy to all
above.
GNH Commission shall provide Financing Item Codes (FIC) to Resident
Coordinator(RC) unit with copy to head of units under UN agencies.
xxvii
1.3 Subsequent release of funds for the next quarters shall be based on submission of
completed FACE form (expenditure statement for the previous quarter) and Standard
Progress Report (SPR) following the same channels as above.
Sl.
No.
Activity Responsible
Agency
Number of
Working Days
From the Time
Received by the
office
1. Submission of FACE form/SPR/
Expenditure statement to GNHC
Implementing
Agency
Shall be submitted
no later than the
15th day of the new
quarter, i.e. second
week of April, July,
October and
January.
2. Review and submission to UN GNHC 2 days
3. Review and deposit of funds to DPA UN 3 days
Number of working days on the assumption that all required documents are submitted
by the concerned agency.
2. Request for funds from DPA and Release to Implementing Agency
2.1 The Implementing Agency shall upon receipt of credit advance from the UN submit its release request to the DPA in a standard Fund Requisition Form (FRF). For standard FRF
please visit Ministry of Finance website at www.mof.gov.bt.
2.2 For timely release of the funds, the following minimum conditions are to be fulfilled by the
Implementing Agencies:
(a) Sufficient Budget Provision: There should be sufficient budget provision against the
activity for which fund release is requested. If the activity is new, budget incorporation process
has to be completed before requesting for fund release. (see I Budgeting)
(b) Monthly Accounts: Monthly Accounts has to be submitted to the DPA by the Agencies
within 15 days after completion of the month.
(c) Donor Fund Balance: Since the activity is donor funded, there should be donor fund
balance with the DPA (RGoB).
xxviii
The Revised Fund Release Procedure along with the time frame is presented below:
Sl/No. Type of Fund Releases Documents Required
Time Frame for DPA
for Processing
Releases
I. Budgetary Releases:
1. Capital Releases
(Construction & Non-
Construction)
Fund Requisition Form to be
submitted without any
supporting documents
3 working days
(Release completed
within 3 working days
from the receipt of the
FRF
II Non-budgetary Releases:
1 Refundable & Non-revenue
release
Request letter accompanied
by copy of deposit invoice
confirmed by Bank
7 working days Release
completed within 7
working days from the
receipt of the request
letter
2 Un-encashed Cheques Request letter with original
un-encashed cheques and
explanations
5 working days Release
completed within 5
working days from the
receipt of the request
letter
Note: For details of RGoB Revised Fund Release Procedure, please visit Ministry of Finance
website at mof.gov.bt
Sl.
No.
Activity Responsible
Agency
Number of
Working Days
From the Time
Received by the
Office
1. Submission of release request in
FRF to DPA
Implementing
Agency
2. Review and release of funds to
Implementing Agency
DPA 3 days
xxix
RE-APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
1.1 Re-appropriation of Funds refers to transfer of budgets from one object code to another,
i.e. from one activity to another under a workplan or for incorporation of lapsed funds.
1.2 The re-appropriation of funds should be agreed between Implementing Agency, UN and
GNHC at the quarterly review meetings based on the standard progress reports and the
FACE forms. It can however also be requested on an ad hoc basis should an urgent need for re-appropriation arise. Approval of UN and GNHC is required for ad-hoc re-
appropriations of funds.
1.3 The implementing Agency shall next submit the official request for re-appropriation of funds to GNHC in Budget Form IX (attached). The request shall include detailed
justification for re-appropriation (explaining reasons for savings under one budget head
and need for additional funds in another), amounts proposed for re-appropriation and
budget codes. GNHC after reviewing the request shall seek the concurrence of UN.
1.4 Upon receiving UN‟s concurrence, GNHC shall request DNB for re-appropriation of funds
with copy of the request to the Implementing Agency. The Implementing Agency shall
follow-up with DNB.
Sl.
No.
Activity Responsible
Agency
Number of Working Days
From the Time Received by the
Office
1. Request for Re-appropriation of
Funds to GNHC
Implementing
Agency
2. Review by GNHC and
submission to UN for
concurrence to transfer
budgets from one budget head
to another.
GNHC 2 days
3. Review by UN and convey
concurrence to GNHC
UN 3 days
4. GNHC to DNB requesting re-
appropriation
GNHC 1 day
5. Re-appropriation of Funds by
DNB and convey it to IA
DNB 2 days
Number of working days on the assumption that all required documents are submitted
by the concerned agency as per the budget call notification of DNB.
REFUND OF UNSPENT FUNDS
1.1 The Implementing Agency shall send the refund of unspent fund if any after completion
of activities/project directly to Department of Public Accounts with copy to DCD, GNHC and
xxx
relevant UN agencies. The cheque should be in favour of Budget Fund Account and the DPA
shall refund the unspent fund to relevant UN agencies Account.
For further details on the procedural guidelines see RGoB‟s Financial Manual www.mof.gov.bt
xxxi
ANNEX 6:
Guidelines: Standard Progress Reports
What is the Standard Progress Report (SPR)?
The SPR is designed to facilitate evidence-based decision-making at the Theme Group’ Quarterly and
Annual Review Meetings. It describes the progress made towards achieving the activities and outputs of
the AWP and outlines the contribution made towards the CT and UNDAF Outcomes of the
cCPAP/UNDAF. The SPR also summarizes key achievements, challenges faced and proposed
recommendations. This report is prepared jointly by the Implementing Partner (IP) and Development
Partner (DP) and presented during the Quarterly or Annual Review Meetings. The completed SPR and
FACE form constitute the basis for reporting on results, financial liquidation and new request for funds.
Basic technical information
The top section of the SPR provides all the basic information of the Annual Work Plan, most of which
remains unchanged throughout the year:
Financial Year refers to the UN yearly financial period, which follows the annual calendar year (e.g. 2008)
Reporting Period is the duration covered by the report most commonly referred to quarterly (e.g. Q3, July-September), or annual (e.g. 2008, January – December)
Administrative Unit refers to the Implementing Partners (ministries, agencies and NGOs) who are responsible for execution of the AWP and achievement of activities and outputs
Department refers to division/section/unit (e.g. Department of School Education) of the Implementing Partner which is directly responsible for implementation of the AWP and reporting
Program & AWP title are the names used to describe the subject of the Program and of the AWP within each program. E.g. Program title – UN support to results based planning and M&E for the MDGs and GNH; e.g. AWP title – Planning and monitoring for poverty reduction.
Contribution to National and International Goals & Targets
This section of the SPR analyzes and summarizes the contribution of the AWP towards the achievement
of relevant National and International Goals.
Classification refers to the type of Goal, such as UNDAF Outcome or MDGs. It should be populated from the AWP cover page.
Indicator is a piece of information that provides evidence of progress against planned results. Indicators can be qualitative (using categories or classification) or quantitative signals (#, %, rate, proportion, etc). In this section, indicators help to measure and verify the achievement of UNDAF
Outcomes or MDGs. The UNDAF Outcome indicators should be populated using the UNDAF M&E framework, and the MDGs using the MDGs indicators.
Target refers to the progress desired for a specific period as part of the progressive achievement of UNDAF Outcomes/MDGs. The target aligns with the indicator (can be qualitative and quantitative) and is estimated based on the baseline which refers to the condition at the beginning of the planning cycle.
Progress: In this section, progress should be described against UNDAF Outcomes or MDGs, but in a way that is mindful of the indicators and targets. Of course, there may be important detail to report that does not address listed indicators. This information should also be included, perhaps referenced as ‘unanticipated’ results. It helps the user of the report to know the findings and conclusions were obtained. For instance, a quarterly or annual household survey would be far too costly and physically impossible to gather for the report. This kind of surveying would happen less frequently. In this case, it might be necessary to make inferences on the basis of lower level results (CT Outcomes, Outputs) and analytically explain the contribution these have made towards the UNDAF Outcomes or MDGs. At this result level, it is helpful to think of the corporate AWP achievements and their overall contribution to UNDAF Outcomes or MDGs.
Contribution to CT Outcomes
This section analyzes and summarizes the contribution
of the AWP towards the achievement of relevant CT
Outcomes.
Outcomes: In this section the term refers to CT Outcomes and constitutes behavior or institutional changes brought about with UN support. E.g. enhanced capacity of public sector to implement results based policy, plan and programme development for MDGs, GNH and other national priorities (CT Outcome 1.5). The
Box 1: Progress Report on UNDAF Outcome –
hypothetical example
UNDAF Outcome: By 2012, access to quality
education for all with gender equality and special
focus on the hard to reach population improved
Indicators: Net Enrollment rate (by sex, Dzongkhag),
Youth literacy rate (by sex, Dzongkhag)
Progress: More students enrolled in primary and
basic education in 2008 than was the case in 2007,
and appears to be part of longer term trend toward
higher enrollment. Nationally, percentage
enrollment in primary education was 88%, a four
percent increase over the previous year, while the
figure for basic education in 2008 was 85%, an
increase of 10%. Progress is uneven across
dzongkhags, however. Least progress is evident in x,
x, and x, despite the fact that these areas received
the same level of assistance as in other parts of the
country. Progress is most impressive in x, x, x. At
primary school age, there is no appreciable
difference in the trends between boys and girls - the
level of access to education appears more or less the
same across the country.
Interviews with school administrators suggest that
UN-RGOB supported school feeding, maintenance
and construction of schools water and sanitation
facilities and the provision of teaching-learning
materials and teacher training have made a positive
difference. Informants in at least 150 of the 185
schools visited over the past year could point to
improvements in the school environment that stem
from assistance provided. Buildings, furniture and
teacher training - in particular - appear to be the key
contributors according these informants. "Parents
are much more likely to send their children to school,
if they know they will have a good place to sit and
will learn something from the teachers", noted one
administrator in x dzongkhag.
The same upward trends in accessibility are not
evident among youth and adult learners. Nationally,
the numbers enrolling at NFE centers declined from
14,694 in 2007, to 13,829 in 2008. Over a five year
period the trend is more or less steady across the
country. There is also a persistent pattern of men
signing up more than women on a ratio of 3 to 2.
The recent NFE assessment indicates that, on the
whole, adult learners across the country are gaining
literacy and life skills from these centers and that
CT Outcomes should be populated using the AWP cover page.
Indicators: See description above. In this section, indicators help to measure and verify the achievement of CT Outcomes. The CT Outcome indicators should be populated using the UNDAF M&E framework and cCPAP Results & Resources Framework.
Baseline describes conditions as they are at or close to the beginning of the programme cycle, and the departure point from where to measure progress over time.
Target: See description above. The target should be developed and included for each CT Outcome indicator and should be estimated considering the baseline.
Progress: In this section progress should be described against CT Outcomes mindful of the indicators and targets. It is important to identify the means of verification, and frequency of information collection bearing in mind the practical implication the ‘means of verification’ has. For instance, a quarterly or annual household survey would be far too costly and physical impossible. Instead, focus on the lower level results (CT Outputs, Activity progress) and analytically explain the contribution these have made towards the CT Outcomes. At this result level, it is helpful to think of the corporate CT Outputs achievements and their overall contribution to the relevant CT Outcome.
Activity and Output Progress Details
This section of the SPR describes the progress details for each activity and analyzes/summarizes the
contribution of activity progress towards the achievement of relevant CT Outputs.
Box 2: Progress Report on CT Outcome –
hypothetical example
CT Outcome: Improved quality of education
delivered by relevant stakeholders
Indicators: Coverage of Early Childhood Care and
Education, Net completion rate (by sex, level), % of
drop-outs and repeaters (by sex, level), Transition
rate to secondary education, # of adults and young
people enrolled in NFE
Progress: The # of children enrolled in Day Care
Centers increased from 215 children in 2007 to 294
in 2008. The drop out rate has decreased from 3.6%
in 2007 to 2.8% in 2008, and the repetition rate has
also reduced from 6.4% to 6.0%. The completion
rate also indicates improvement from 76% in 2007 to
87% in 2008 at the primary level, and from 49% to
54% at the basic level. There is no significant
difference in the trends across gender; though it
should be noted that girl drop out rate is not
improving at quite the same rate as it is for boys.
This warrants further attention.
From interviews with teachers, school administrators
and parents at the seven schools identified for the
UNICEF supported, Child Friendly Schools Approach,
it is clear that the learning environment has
improved over the past year.
Teachers are becoming more comfortable using the
child centered learning techniques – though for
many it took a few months to ‘unlearn’ old practices
and become accustomed to the new teaching
materials. Students are much more attentive in the
classroom and parents are noticing how the content
learned in the school is being shared much more at
home.
Beyond the introduction of new teaching styles,
school teachers and administrators attribute the
improved teaching-learning environment to the
school feeding program and to the water and
sanitation programming. The latter is clearly helping
students see the importance of protecting clean
water sources and preventing sickness through hand
washing.
Outputs are, most commonly, products and services that result from the implementation of activities, and activities are the actions taken to achieve the outputs. The outputs and activities section of the SPR should be completed based on the agreed AWP.
Indicators and annual targets: See description above. The annual target is the yearly breakdown of the milestone (target) set for the duration of the programme cycle. In this section, the indicators and targets refer to the CT Outputs and should be completed from the AWP.
Physical progress refers to the achievement of the activities and outputs measured from the baseline to the target. It is relevant for the activities and outputs which result in a quantifiable material product (e.g. Renovation of schools, Equipping health centres), or quality of services if categories applied (e.g. Relevant curriculum used in NFE teaching). Current quarter physical progress should reflect the progress made during the reported period (e.g. Q3) and cumulative is the sum of current plus previous quarters if the activity initiated during prior quarters (e.g. Q1+Q2+Q3).
Budget section of the SPR refers to the planned activity budget which was agreed between the IP and DP and disbursed by the IP. It should be included from the FACE form.
Expenditure is the budget utilization for implementation of activities. Current quarter expenditures should reflect the amounts utilized during the reported period (e.g. Q3), cumulative is the sum of current plus previous quarters if the activity was initiated during prior quarters (e.g. Q1+Q2+Q3), and balance constitutes the difference between the disbursed and utilized amounts. The expenditure amount should tally and be based on the FACE form. Additional expenditures incurred by the Development Partner in the form of direct payment or Regional Offices’ payment in benefit of Implementing Partner should be also included in the SPR by the DP.
Box 3: Progress Report on CT Output –
hypothetical example
CT Output: Children with special learning needs have
access to specialized education services in 5 selected
areas where there are more children in need of
special care
Indicator: # of locations with specialized education
services in place
Baseline: 3; Target: 5
Indicator: # of children with special learning needs
with access to special education services in 5
selected areas
Progress: At the close of the year, there has been no
change to the number of schools providing
specialized education to children with learning
needs, but an additional school is due to open next
year in ‘x’, and a second one the year after. The
quality of programming has improved greatly in the
three existing schools, as a result of teacher training,
building refurbishments and the introduction of
some new trades training initiatives. These
improvements have also allowed the three schools
to increase the number of student spaces by 50%.
There are now 8 male and 13 female students
enrolled. The three existing schools are now set to
be the training grounds for a new crop of teachers
who will be deployed at the new schools as they
come on line.
Key achievements in 2008 include: refurbishment of
the Drukgyel LSS hall, provision of TV for girl hostel,
printing of sign language materials for the deaf, and
training in bakery skills of instructors catering to deaf
children. It is planned that the trained instructors will
further teach the children with special learning needs
on livelihood skills.
Interviews with Ministry officials in charge of
developing these specialized training facilities,
indicate that they are learning a great deal from the
testing of new ideas at the existing schools. One
person noted that with the three existing facilities
Analysis of variance: In this section progress should be described against the activities and outputs. The activity progress should be concise but detailed enough to fully understand the achievements. For example, if training was undertaken, the number, gender (male, female), function and skills acquired by the participants, as well as location, duration and subjects covered by the training should be included. Field monitoring reports, observation notes, participation log, agenda and other means of verification can be used as sources for reporting. Mindful of the indicators and annual targets, the Output progress is more analytical as it requires focus on the corporate achievement of the activities and their contribution to the relevant Output. The Output analysis should describe the difference between the planned target and actual progress.
Summary of Achievements, Issues and Recommendations
This section of the SPR takes a holistic look at the overall AWP progress and highlights the key
achievements, issues and recommendations deserving primary attention by the Theme Group during
the review meeting.
Key achievements: From all the accomplishments of the AWP, this section should include selective achievements which are significant for the purpose of documenting innovation, scaling up, lessons learned and knowledge sharing.
Constraints & issues refer to the challenges faced during the reporting period that had an impact on AWP or implementation of specific activities. Potential issues anticipated for the next quarters should also be included for attention and management.
Recommendations: This section should include recommendations (suggestions) to address the above challenges. These can be administrative, financial, human resource or programmatic.
STANDARD PROGRESS REPORT
FINANCIAL YEAR:
REPORTING PERIOD:
Administrative Unit: Department:
Division/Field Office/Regional Office:
(if it is an independent budgeting entity)
Program & AWP Title:
1. Contribution to UNDAF Outcomes & Other Goals
Classification (e.g.
UNDAF Outcome,
MDGs)
Indicators Baseline Targets Progress
2. Contribution to CT Outcomes
Outcome Indicators Baseline Targets Progress
Outputs & Activities Indicators Annual
Target
Physical Progress
Budget
(Nu.)
(A)
Expenditure
(Nu.) Analysis of Variance
(explain progress and the
difference between planned target
and actual progress)
Current
Quarter
Cumul
ative
Current
Quarter
Cumul
ative
(B)
Balance
(A)-(B)
Output:
Information in these shaded columns at the output level
is not required. Please leave these columns blank.
Activity 1:
Indicators and targets not
required at the activity level
Activity 2:
3. Output & Activity Progress Details
Activity 3:
Activity 4:
Output:
Information in these shaded columns at the output level is
not required. Please leave these columns blank.
Activity 1:
Indicators and targets not required
at the activity level
Activity 2:
Activity 3:
Activity 4:
Output:
Information in these shaded columns at the
output level is not required. Please leave these
columns blank.
4. Summary of Issues & Recommendations
Key Achievements:
(Highlight the main achievements in the current Quarter)
Constraints & Issues:
(List the constraints/problems & issues faced)
Activity 1:
Indicators and targets not
required at the activity
level
Activity 2:
Activity 3:
Activity 4:
Total
Recommendations:
(Include your recommendations/remedial actions to
improve implementation.)
Additional comments:
Prepared by Name:
Designation: Agency: Date:
Verified by Name:
Designation: Agency: Date: