2024-10-13-Devinit-地方和国家合作伙伴的间接成本_政策和实践映射（英）_17页_353kb

Summary of Indirect Costs for Local and National Partners (October 2024)

Overview

This document provides an updated mapping of policies and practices regarding the provision of indirect costs (ICR) to local and national humanitarian actors by donors, UN agencies, International NGOs (INGOs), and International Red Cross and Red Crescent (RCRC) organisations. It highlights progress made since the 2022 mapping and outlines the current state of ICR policies across different entities.

Core Content

Importance of Indirect Costs

Organisations delivering humanitarian programmes require funding for indirect costs, which include overall management, administration, infrastructure, and ICT services. Donors and intermediaries are expected to support these costs to ensure effective localisation and programme sustainability.

Grand Bargain and ICR

The Grand Bargain, a global agreement to improve humanitarian coordination and funding, encourages intermediaries and donors to support local and national partners with indirect costs. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) has developed guidance based on research by Development Initiatives (DI) and partners like UNICEF and Oxfam.

Key Findings

Donors

• Belgium's Federal Public Service (FPS): Developing guidance on earmarked funding.
• DG ECHO (EU): Encourages partners to develop overhead policies and prioritises project proposals that include ICR.
• The Ford Foundation: Provides a minimum ICR of 25%, with the possibility of a higher rate under certain circumstances.
• German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO): Ensures INGOs pass funding to local partners (7–9%), with policy revisions pending.
• Global Affairs Canada: Provides up to 7.5% of direct project costs for ICR.
• The Hewlett Foundation: Offers flexible funding, with a commitment to cover ICR and a ‘True Cost Coaching’ pilot.
• Irish Aid: Requires all partners to provide overheads to local and national partners.
• MFAT, New Zealand: Allows up to 10% ICR for aid-recipient countries, with an additional 10% for partners based in New Zealand.
• Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs: In consultation with the Dutch Relief Alliance to develop a policy.
• Norway MFA: Uses internal rules and plans to develop a specific policy.
• AECID (Spain): Provides 12% ICR for Spanish NGOs (50% shared with local partners), and 3–8% for non-Spanish NGOs.
• Sida (Sweden): In development of a policy for ICR.
• SDC (Switzerland): Provides ICR to all partners, with rates determined through discussions.
• FCDO (UK): Guidelines recommend ICR of 10% or the Non-Project Attributable Costs rate, whichever is higher.
• USAID (US): Increased the de minimis rate from 10% to 15% for local and national NGOs.

UN Agencies

• FAO: Does not provide overheads, but accepts a percentage of total operating costs if direct costs are unclear.
• IOM: Provides up to 7% ICR, with no audit requirement.
• OCHA Country Based Pooled Funds: Provides up to 7% ICR, with no reporting requirement.
• UNICEF: Provides 7% ICR, with no detailed breakdown required.
• UNHCR: Provides 4% for national partners and 7% for international partners, with no audit requirement.
• UNFPA: Provides up to 12% ICR, with no reporting requirement.
• UN Women: Provides up to 8% or donor-specific rate, with annual independent audit.
• WFP: Provides 7% ICR, with no audit requirement.
• WHO: Provides 5–7% ICR, depending on donor conditions, with no audit requirement.

International NGOs (INGOs)

• ActionAid: Shares 4% ICR with partners, with annual capacity reviews.
• CARE: Provides ICR based on donor conditions, with new policy in place.
• CAFOD: Shares 50% of allowable ICR with partners, with unrestricted contribution.
• CRS: Provides up to 10% ICR for non-USAID projects, and follows USAID de minimis rate for USAID-funded projects.
• Christian Aid: Shares 50% of allowable ICR with partners, with 10% added for public-funded projects.
• Concern: Offers three ICR approaches depending on project and donor context.
• Cordaid: Provides ICR on a case-by-case basis, with no organisational policy.
• Dan Church Aid: Provides 7% ICR for Denmark-funded projects, otherwise based on donor conditions.
• DRC: Provides 4–7% ICR based on risk assessment.
• Dutch Relief Alliance: Provides 6–8% ICR and an additional 5% for capacity strengthening.
• IRC (International Rescue Committee): Provides maximum ICR as per donor rules.
• Islamic Relief: In development of ICR policy.
• Kindernothilfe (KNH): Provides up to 10% ICR, with some flexibility.
• Mercy Corps: Aims for full cost recovery based on donor parameters.
• NEAR: Offers 15% ICR to local and national partners.
• Norwegian Refugee Council: Provides 4% ICR or donor-specified rate.
• Oxfam: Provides international guidance, with member-specific trials ongoing.
• Save the Children: Piloting ICR-sharing approach with selected donors.
• Trócaire: Shares 50% of allowable ICR with partners, with proportional sharing for multiple partners.

RCRC Movement

• ICRC: Provides National Society partners with administrative costs or 7% of overheads, with no policy for other operational partnerships.
• IFRC: In development of ICR policy, pilot-testing solutions to allow local partners to recover 6–7% of indirect costs.

Main Points

• The number of Grand Bargain signatories with ICR policies for local and national partners has increased from 8 in 2022 to 25 in 2024.
• ICR policies vary significantly among donors and intermediaries, with some offering fixed rates and others flexible approaches.
• There is a growing emphasis on transparency, accountability, and ensuring that ICR covers all necessary overheads.
• Several organisations are in the process of developing or revising their ICR policies, reflecting ongoing efforts to improve localisation and support for local actors.

Key Terms

• De minimis: A rate set by USAID (now 15%) that allows for a fixed percentage of indirect costs to be covered without audit.
• ICR (Indirect Cost Recovery): Refers to the funding provided to cover overhead costs, with allowable rates varying by donor and intermediary.
• INGO: International non-governmental organisation.
• True Cost: A commitment to cover all necessary overheads, not just a percentage of the budget.

Conclusion

This document highlights the evolving landscape of ICR policies for local and national humanitarian actors, reflecting increased commitment and transparency. While progress has been made, many organisations are still in the process of developing or updating their policies, indicating that the issue remains dynamic and ongoing.