NICFI Civil Society - FAQ Stage 2

Please note that the deadline for asking questions to skog@norad.no was 18. August.

As we received a high number of questions, one more update including remaining questions can be expected next week, tentatively 28^th August. This includes several questions related to results and knowledge management.

Application Process 

Q: The letter inviting us to submit a full proposal state: “The application must be based on the previously submitted concept note and must include the information provided in the concept note”.  We would like to confirm what is meant here; if we incorporate all the work and objectives mentioned (outcomes and outputs) would that suffice?

A: Yes, this is sufficient. It is important that you keep the same outcomes, however, adjustments in outputs to achieve the planned outcomes may be considered.

Q: What is the specific NICFI evaluation criteria for Stage 2?

A: Please see the call text in the Grants Portal. All criteria listed are relevant.

Q: Are there any general insights Norad can share regarding the weighting or prioritization of the assessment criteria (e.g., project objectives, cost-effectiveness, risk management, capacity, cross-cutting issues, or overall portfolio composition) during the appraisal process? The comprehensive list of assessment criteria is provided, but understanding their relative importance could help us understand where Norad places the most emphasis.

A: All these criteria are relevant.

Q: Could you provide an anticipated award date? This information is crucial for us to align our project start date and finalize our budgeting and planning.

A: Our aim is to give preliminary feedback by the end of November and to make final decisions in December.

Q: Do we have the flexibility to select our desired start date, provided the project falls within the overall project 3-year period?

A: We normally expect starting dates to be early in 2026, but a later day can be suggested.

Q: The Call for proposal specifies that "Agreements will be made for the 3-year period 2026-2028", while the invitation letter instructs applicants to “apply for a period of 3 years” (with no mention of calendar years). We have noted that the online portal's budget tool allows for costs to be allocated through the calendar year 2029. To ensure our proposal aligns with the funding requirements, could you please confirm that a project period, beginning later in 2026, can extend into 2029 as long as it runs for a period of 3 years?

A: This is a possibility that can be considered.

Q: When would awarded projects typically be expected to commence activities?

A: We would generally expect activities to start in 1^st quarter of 2026.

Q: Do we know when the results of the second phase will be made public? If we could know before COP30, we could get together with all partners in Belem as a great way to start actually assembling the coalition workplans in detail.

A: It is not likely that we will make decisions before the COP.

Q: Are there more information that can be shared on the assessment of our concept note?

A: Applications were evaluated against the following criteria, in this order: Relevance to the thematic call and NICFI strategic framework, relevance to geographic context, thematic and geographic competence, partnership model, and financial management and governance.

Q: The Call Information under Crosscutting Themes notes: “A gender analysis should be conducted to inform the project, with an emphasis on ensuring gender-sensitive project design.” Should the gender analysis be included in the application itself, and if so, in which section?

A: As a minimum, applicants must assess risks related to women’s rights and gender equality in the Cross-cutting issues section. It is viewed positively if the applicant explains how gender considerations have informed the project design in the project description document. Please also consider specific targets in the results framework.

Q: For budgeting and timing purposes, we would like to know if developing a formal gender analysis is required under this project, and if so, can it be conducted during the early implementation phase?

A: A risk assessment covering Women’s rights and gender equality is required under the cross-cutting issues section. Applications are considered stronger when they also demonstrate how the project will contribute to promoting gender equality.

Q: Regarding Previous results, accreditations, and certifications (We recommend all previous results and accreditations or certifications by other donors such as DG ECHO, the UN, the Green Climate Fund, the World Bank, or the Core Humanitarian Standard to be disclosed and submitted, as this will contribute to strengthening documentation of capacity and competence).

What types of documents will be accepted as proof of experience? Can we submit contracts and activity reports from completed projects? Should this documentation be provided for all consortium members or only for the lead applicant?

A: As the lead applicant will be responsible for a possible grant, we are mainly interested in accreditations or certifications for the lead applicant. This should be a specific document, please do not include contracts or activity reports.

Q: Should our proposal be approved, we would like to know if there will be a co-creation phase for the project after the approval stage?

A: A co-creation phase cannot be expected. However, we will be open to dialogue on aspects of the project approach.

Grants portal and formats

Project description

Q: The format suggested for the Project description outlined in the invitation to submit a stage 2 proposal is more detailed than what is suggested in the Grants Portal.  Which should we follow?

A: It is correct that the invitation letter gives more detail on what to include in the Project description. Please follow the instructions of the invitation letter, including format prescriptions. You may follow the template on the portal and include what the letter indicates within the sections.

Q: Would we need to provide a summary on the budget and MEAL plan in the Project Description? Both will be submitted as separate documents, but we are wondering whether we need to include brief summaries of both items in the Project Description.

A: Please follow the guidance in the invitation letter, even if there is some overlap with information provided in attachments.

Q: What paper size should be used – A4? What citation format (e.g. paranthetical, footnotes) should be used?

A: Please use A4. As you write in a word document that will be converted to pdf, you may choose citation format.

Q: For the 20-page Project Description document, we would like to request an exception to the standard formatting guidelines. Specifically, we would like to use a smaller Times New Roman font (size 9 or 10) and single spacing exclusively within text boxes, tables, and graphics. This would significantly improve the clarity and readability of these specific elements, ensuring the document is both well-formatted and easy to follow.

A: You may do as suggested for boxes, tables and graphics.

Q: Should we include outputs and outcomes in the narrative project description, or is it sufficient to include them exclusively in the Results Framework?

A: Please also include outcomes in the narrative project description, following the instructions in the invitation letter.

Q: Can we upload any other documents to the portal, for example a list of definitions used in the project description?

A: You may add other attachments under “Additional information”. Please follow the instructions in the application form, as well as the invitation letter.

Results framework

Q: Can you please confirm that there is no character limitations applied for the results framework?

A: Please see guidance to the application form: PDF format should be used for all attachments, unless otherwise specified in the instructions to the field. Maximum file size is 10MB.

Q: Is there a NORAD/NICFI template available for developing the results framework?

A: We do not have a template for results framework. However, you can find relevant guidance here.

Q: The acceptance letter indicates that we do not need to submit an implementation plan, but the online platform does ask for it. Could you confirm that there is no requirement to submit an implementation plan? Is it optional? Will an application be regarded unfavourably if an application plan is not included?

A: There is no requirement to submit an implementation plan/activity plan and applications will not be viewed less favourably if it is not included.

Risk matrix

Q: Is there a format for risk assessment?

A: In addition to the boxes in the application form, please attach a risk matrix (ref invitation letter). PDF format should be used, and maximum file size is 10MB.

Budget format

Q: Is there a budget format? Should the budget have greater detail than what was submitted at the concept note stage?

A: Please use the budget format shared on the website for the call. Norad may request more detailed information (spot checks) when processing applications. See also Q&A under “Budget and costs”.

Q: Please can you CONFIRM ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS that need to be included as part of the second stage of the application. We understand the list of documents to be:

• Project description
• Budget
• Results Framework
• Risk Assessment
• Knowledge Plan

A: Please follow the instructions in the application form. Regarding attachments to be uploaded, this is correct.

Results and knowledge management 

Q: In addition to the core indicators, should the project also develop its own indicators? If so, is there a maximum or minimum number of non- core indicators that the proposal should include?

A: Yes, the project should develop its own results framework including the core indicators and any relevant project indicators. There is no minimum or maximum number of indicators, but the applicant is expected to be reasonable.

Q: The call text says that "Preference will be given to proposals that are expected to contribute to one or several of the following strategic areas of the grant scheme", implying that it's not a requirement to include all strategic areas in the application. While the core indicators are not explicitly tied to the four strategic areas of the call, it's evident that they are related to each of these. In the case where an applicant is not aiming to contribute to all of the strategic areas, would the fact that the applicant is not planning to work in the given strategic area be a sufficient justification to not report on what is an assumed related core indicator? 

A: Yes. The applicant is only expected to include core indicators that are relevant to the project.

Q: “The applicant can document the necessary technical and administrative competence and capacity to implement the project, including a monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning system (MEAL).” Would the “Brief description of the organisation’s system for results management” already submitted in the “Organisation’s information” section, under “Routine, systems and experience,” during the first stage be sufficient?  

A: The requested monitoring, evaluation, research and learning plan is sufficient.  However, you may also update organisational information in this section in case there are any changes since you submitted the concept note in April. 

Q: "Can Norad confirm whether a knowledge and MEL (Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning) plan is a mandatory requirement for submission in round 2? Furthermore, can such a plan be integrated into the results framework and theory of change, or must it be submitted as a separate attachment under 'Other attachments' in the application form?" 

A: Knowledge management plan (Monitoring, evaluation, research and learning plan): Norad expects applicants to submit a knowledge management plan covering the duration of the project period. The plan should describe how learning will be used to refine programming and address evidence gaps. Any planned knowledge products—such as monitoring activities, evaluations, reviews, or research—should be clearly linked to elements of the theory of change, identified knowledge gaps, programming decisions, or the strategic objectives of the organisation.

Q: For a multi-partner consortium, should the required knowledge plan be presented as a single integrated plan covering the consortium’s joint learning agenda, or should it include linked partner-specific sub-plans? 

A: One knowledge plan for the whole consortium is sufficient 

Q: Is a visual diagram of the Theory of Change required as part of the technical proposal submission, or is the written IF-THEN logic structure sufficient to meet NICFI requirements? 

A: It is up to the applicant how they want to present the TOC, but a visual diagram might be helpful

Q: Is there an evaluation of the project (mid-term or at the programme end) apart from regular progress report and NORAD visit? If so, does NORAD require an independent project evaluation by a third party that we need to budget for? 

A: Yes, if the grant is above 50 million NOK an evaluation is required, either as a mid-term review or as a final evaluation. This should be budgeted for. Please refer to Norad’s grant handbook online. 

Q: Can you please clarify if there are any specific details required in the results framework, for example to provide a breakdown of indicators/targets by country and/or per year, or is it preferred to just show total targets at this stage? 

A: Breakdown per country would be preferred, along with baseline + end targets. Indicators are not expected at output level. Please refer to Norads’s grant handbook online. 

Q: Would we need to provide targets/milestones for each year of the project or only the targets at the end of the project as part of the RF?  

A: Please provide baseline values and end of project targets. In case where baseline data is missing, this can be obtained in the first 6 months of the project.  

Q: For a baseline of some indicators, we have an initial solid idea from the co-creation process but would propose to verify this through a more robust baseline study in the first months of implementation. Is this acceptable? 

A: Yes. Please provide baseline values and end of project targets. In case where baseline data is missing, this can be obtained in the first 6 months of the project. 

Q: Does NICFI have a framework for how it defines ‘outputs’, ‘outcomes’, ‘results’, ‘objectives’? It seems to use some of these terms interchangeably in the application documents.  

A: Norad’s Key terms are defined as follows: 
•    Impact: higher-level effects; often effects on society/environment 
•    Outcome: short and medium-term effects of the outputs on the target group 
•    Output: products and services delivered within the project 
•    Activity: concrete tasks that a project undertakes  
•    Input: financial, human, and material resources used for the project 

Q: When referring to “expected results,” are you primarily referring to “outcomes”? If not, how do you distinguish between “expected results” and “outcomes” in this context?  

A: Generally, we operate on three different results levels: impact, outcomes and outputs/deliverables. We would like you to focus on outcomes in the proposal and include indicators on outcome level.  

Q: In the “Impact” definition, should targets be explicitly included in the text.   

A: Yes 

Q: How much flexibility is there to modify the scope and relevance of the outcomes and outputs as they were presented in the first stage proposal?  

A: We expect you to keep the same outcomes as in the concept note. You may consider changes to outputs. 

Q: The Call documents mention "indicators" for this round specified in the invitation letter but I cannot find these. Can you provide them? 

A: Please refer to the webpage for stage 2 of the call for proposal and relevant links on the right side. 

Q: Do you have more guidance on the NICFI Core Indicators, e.g. a more detailed definitions on what NICFI considers as included within these indicators? Would the indicators include direct and indirect contributions, and should we differentiate them? In terms of NICFI CI on areas of sustainable resource management, should we differentiate between forests and/or other natural vegetations being protected and agriculture area managed sustainably (i.e. under DCF)?  

A: Please define the standard indicators and how you would apply and measure them in the most suitable way for your project/program. Such input will be used to further develop the core indicators and the MEL system for this grant, so any methodological considerations are of value. The core indicators are listed on the call for proposal website.  

Q: Should the published core indicators be applied across all result levels (Impact, Outcome, and Output)? Will further information be provided on the purpose and methodology of each core indicator?   

A: The core indicators are primarily intended for the outcome level. Please refer to the instruction in the call for proposal and define how you will apply and measure the relevant core indicators.  

Q: Impact vs. Outcome level indicators – Should Impact-level indicators align with the NICFI strategic framework? From the guidance, it seems the Core Indicators are meant to be at the Outcome level—could you confirm? 

A: Yes. The NICFI core indicators are at outcome level. It would be good to align Impact level indicators with the NICFI strategic framework 

Q: Some Core Indicators cover broad areas. Can we split them into separate counts, or should we provide one set of indicators/targets for each Core Indicator per relevant Outcome?  

A: You can split indicators into separate counts. However, you need to report the aggregated consolidated number for each core indicator. 

Q: Definition of “standard indicator” – The Guidelines for Applicants on Results Management state: “Applicants must also explain how end targets have been calculated for each standard indicator.” Does “standard indicator” refer to all Outcome-level indicators (both core and any additional), or does it also include Output-level indicators? 

A: Standard indicators refer to the 10 core indicators that all applicants are expected to include in their results framework, as long as it is relevant to their proposal. Output indicators are not expected, only output statements.   

Q: Would it be possible to provide a concrete example of Core indicator #2 or give additional instructions? I seems that it relates to Core indicator #1, but we are not sure how to interpret it.  

A: It is up to the applicant to describe which core indicators are relevant to their project, and how they will define and measure it. We will not provide further guidance than the description of core indicators and the Guidelines for applicants on results and knowledge management. However, further guidance may be given when a grant is approved. 

Q: What is the intended meaning of « Indigenous » in Core Indicators #3 and #6? Is this an umbrella term that includes local forest-depended communities?  

A: We are interested in both indigenous and local forest-dependent communities. Please specify which groups you include in your proposal. 

Q: Core Indicator 6: we were wondering: 

• How you define “Proportion of funding that reaches IPs directly.” We understand this excludes overhead costs and policy activities, but does it include funding that directly impact Indigenous populations without being managed by them? Is this limited to cash provided to communities, for example as start up funds for their livelihoods activities? Or should it extended to training costs or any other type of costs?
• As for the other indicators, we suspect that this percentage should also consider all the match-funding included in the budget, not just the NICFI contribution?  

A: We are interested in the amount of funding reaching IPs and LCs in ways they can influence and control, that is in ways they can influence and have ownership over. This would include both direct funding to an IP or LC organization, or an IP funding mechanism, and indirectly, such as through regranting and close partnerships in which IPs and LCs have a significant role in the design of a project.   

Partners and sub-grantees (eligibility)

Q: Can the lead organisation be replaced by another organisation at this stage, and the original lead organisation move into a co-lead role? 

A: No. Norad has made a preliminary assessment of the lead applicant in Stage 1, meaning that it must be the same lead applicant in Stage 2.

Q: Are all funds distributed to one project co-lead who is responsible for distribution, or separated to different consortium co-leads from the start? 

A: The agreement will be with the lead applicant and funding will be transferred to the lead applicant, who is responsible for distribution, monitoring and reporting on all funding. (See also FAQ Stage 1).

Q: Can we add a new consortium partner?

A: The lead applicant may add a new partner (consortium partner or sub-grantee), as long as it does not change the content of the proposed project. Please note that the lead applicant/Norad’s contract partner takes responsibility for all funding from Norad.

Q: One of the consortium partners with which the proposal was submitted decided to withdraw. Therefore, we understand from the FAQ released so far that it is possible to add a new partner. We wish to confirm that adding a new partner in place of one of the organizations mentioned in the original concept note is permissible according to the established criteria for this call. 

A: The lead applicant may replace a new partner (consortium partner or sub-grantee), as long as it does not change the content of the proposed project. Please note that the lead applicant/Norad’s contract partner takes responsibility for all funding from Norad.

Q: “Applicants working through partners must be able to document that they have established and tested operational guidelines for the selection of, and cooperation with, implementing partners. Information about known partners must be provided.” To meet this requirement, would responding to the “Project description” topic “The rationale for the choice of partners, their relevant experience and roles in the project” plus the item “Brief description of the organisation's partnership model, the system for selecting partners, and the routines for following up partners” in the “Organisation’s information” section (“Routine, systems and experience”) be sufficient? Or is it necessary to submit an additional, specific document?

A: Information included in these sections should be sufficient. If applicants have specific documents, dedicated to partner selection and follow-up, you may include this under “Additional information.”  

Q: Are formal letters from our project partners required to confirm the partnerships included in our proposal?

A: No this is not a requirement.

Q: What kind of evidence - if any - is required? Would a signed letter of intent from each partner organization be suffice at this stage?

A: No this is not a requirement.

Q: Do we need to provide documentation relating to the sub-grantees? I cannot see requirements related to this on the grants proposal. Please provide a list of documentation from sub-grantees (partners) on the proposal for this Round. 

A: We do not have any specific requirements with regards to documentation that should be submitted on behalf of sub-grantees.

Q: We would like to check whether there are any specific partner eligibility requirements beyond their needing to be civil society organisations?

A: It is assumed that if they are a registered civil society organisation they are by default non-profit.

Q: If a partner meets the lead applicant’s internal systems for selecting partners, is already established, and its staff are highly experienced “driving forces in the country in which the intervention will be implemented” but the organisation itself has been recently formed, are they eligible as Regional/Country Office/Other level, or local, partners? 

A: Norad assesses the lead applicant’s systems for selecting and following-up partners. The lead applicant will also be required to take on all risk related to sub-grantees. The inclusion of sub-grantees is therefore a decision made by the lead applicant.  

Budget and costs

Q: Norad has asked us to remove a country from our multi-country proposal. Can we add the budget from the removed country to other countries in the proposal?

A: No, please revise and reduce the budget accordingly.

Q: Is there a cap on how much of the budget can be outsourced to consultants or third parties? 

A: There is no cap, we will consider the budget when we process the application.

Q: Our Stage 1 budget was submitted in USD, but we would like to change the functional currency to GBP for the full proposal.

The change to GBP would allow us to:

• Resolve currency mismatches between income and expenditure reporting
• Eliminate exchange rate distortions/fluctuations we have experienced by using USD
• Significantly streamline budget forecasting and expenditure tracking with our partners - therefore ensuring we can dedicate more time to the implementation of the programmes work.

We would appreciate your confirmation that this currency change is permissible at this stage.

A: As long as the total budget in NOK remains the same, you can change the currency for the full proposal. Applicants should apply the currency which is most appropriate for the implementation of the project, both in terms of budgeting, payments and reporting (“functional currency”).

Please note that the budget currency shall remain the same throughout the support period.

Q: Do independent consultants and partners need to budget for an audit in their budgets? If so, are you requesting an annual audit or a final audit at end of the award?

A: All partners/subgrantees are subject to the same project audit requirements as the grant recipient. The cost of project audits should be included in the budget. Project audits are submitted annually.

Please note that Norad requires a consolidated financial report with one audit statement. The auditor of the grant recipient is responsible for consolidating the different audit opinions into one which is submitted to Norad. 

Independent consultants who submit invoices for their services to one of the partners are not subject to project audit requirements.

Q: Are we expected to fill in the direct project cost by country and by sector or should we choose just one of those methods?

A: You should do both, if both are relevant (more than one country and/or more than one sector).

Q: On the HQ tab, are we expected to build out Year 2 and Year 3 in the provided budget template so it sums into the total project period?

A: Yes, please include budgeted costs per year (year 1-3). Note that this is not only applicable for HQ costs, but for the full template.

Q: The allocated 7% indirect operating cost rate is lower than that of other donors and our actual institutional overhead. If we’re able to show that our indirect costs are more than 7% based on our audited financial statements, would it be possible to have a higher percentage of indirect?

A: We have a general limit of 7%. Please note that this is meant as a contribution towards indirect costs. It is not meant to cover all indirect costs.

Q: What are the financial reporting requirements, especially in regard to reporting frequency (quarterly/annual, etc) and level of detail, as well as supporting documents required for the financial report? This would be helpful to determine the level of effort we will budget for the financial reporting process.

A: The general requirements are annual financial reports. However, with each disbursement request, you must also include a financial report showing the current status.

The level of detail will depend on several factors, and we cannot give a general answer. However, while we request more details in the assessment process, the budget format included in the agreement – which serves as the basis for the reporting – might be on a more aggregated level.

Q: How does one manage budget deviations and what is the approval process? Apart from the significant deviations as defined in the standard grant agreement (part i specific condition, section 3.4), are there any other requirements that would require written approval?  We are asking because with some donors, this is a very time-consuming process that in itself needs to be properly budgeted. 

A: All partners have a certain flexibility to reallocate between budget lines without pre-approval, as will be stated in the agreement. If significant deviations are foreseen or if there is a need to reallocate beyond the agreed flexibility, Norad should be contacted as soon as possible with the necessary information to assess the adjustments. Written approval from Norad will be provided via e-mail.

Q: Is there any minimum requirements for own contribution/co-funding for this NICFI call for proposal? If none, are we then expected to contribute a minimum 10% of co-funding if we’re from Norway/OECD member countries, or is it not mandatory to provide co-funding?

A: There is no requirement of co-funding for this call.

Q: The grants handbook and standard grant agreement mentioned that for multi-year projects, an annual project audit will be required and this includes part of the grant transferred to downstream partners. Could you please clarify if this applies regardless of the annual grant amount? Is a separate annual project audit for each downstream partner required (separate audit from lead implementer)? This would be helpful for us to budget audit costs. 

A: While the total grant is subject to the audit requirements stated in the agreement, we do not require all partners to have separate project audits. As long as all Norad costs are covered by the audit opinion(s), one single opinion can include costs from more than one partner/subgrantee.

Please note that Norad requires a consolidated financial report with one audit statement. The auditor of the grant recipient is responsible for consolidating the different audit opinions into one which is submitted to Norad.  The audit costs should be included in the budget as a direct cost, and will be covered by the grant.

Q: How should coordination costs (incl. audit, evaluation, etc) be treated in the budget? Should they be allocated pro rata to each outcome (and on what basis), or be allocated to a separate outcome?

A: The budget should strive to give a true and fair view of the planned resources per outcome/country, including relevant coordination costs. Unless certain costs are strictly linked to specific outcomes/countries, a pro-rata share is generally approved. Please include a note in the budget explaining how these costs are calculated and allocated.

Q: We have a budget question about salary costs and how we include them in the budget. Our understanding is that the day rates we use for budgeting can include all costs related to employee salaries, such as basic pay, statutory taxes, and employer pension contributions, thereby covering the actual salary costs incurred in our accounts. Some of our partners were asking whether the staff day rates could include some element of office or management costs associated with maintaining the staff member.  Our understanding is that this would not be an allowable cost to include in salary rates, but would need to be classed as an indirect cost and should be included in the overall indirect costs percentage. Please provide more information on this, and let us know if you have any specific guidance on what should be included in staff rates and indirect costs.

A: Salary costs can only include costs directly attributable to the person, such as salary, taxes, and pension costs for that person. General administration costs, such as office rent or management costs, are covered as part of the indirect cost percentage.

Q: The call for proposals suggested that bids worth 15- 75m NOK per year would be prioritised. If we have been asked in our invitation to submit a bid to remove certain countries and activities and consequently the budget is now lower than 15m NOK per year, will that be allowed?

A: Yes, please follow the guidance in the invitation letter.

Q: Are there any rules about permitted budget changes from concept note to full proposal budget? Or is it acceptable to make changes as long as we can explain these? 

A: Yes, please comment and explain changes compared to what was submitted with the concept note. 

Q: Can you please clarify if there is a difference between the budget requested in the portal on costs (categorised by personnel, consultancy, etc) and the one in the budget template that asks for this only at 'HQ' level? Does this mean that different information is requested in the portal than in the budget form? Which version is correct? 

A: The two budgets are both correct. In the more detailed budget, we ask you to split the costs by level, by outcome and by country, where applicable. In the portal, the total costs are split by key categories only. 

Q: Could Norad confirm that taxes such as VAT and withholdings are eligible project direct expenses? 

A: These costs are generally considered eligible if they are real costs borne by the partner(s) and not recoverable. If they are recoverable in any way, they will not be considered eligible. 

Q: Could you please share the audit manual, so that we can understand the accountability guidelines? 

A: The annual financial statements of the Project shall be audited in accordance with International Standards of Auditing (ISA). The Auditor shall comply with ISA 800 (Special Considerations - Audits of Financial Statements Prepared in Accordance with Special Purpose Frameworks), ISA 805 (Special Considerations audits of single financial statements and specific elements, accounts or items of a financial statement) and all ISAs relevant to the Project audit. Additional requirements applicable to the auditor and the audit report are included below.  

The audit shall be carried out by an independent chartered/certified or state-authorized public accountant (auditor).  

The Donor reserves the right to approve the auditor and may require that the auditor shall be replaced if the Donor finds that the auditor has not performed satisfactorily or if there is any doubt as to the auditor's independence or professional standards. 

The auditor shall form an opinion on whether the Project’s financial statements fairly reflect the financial position of the Project and whether they are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework and the requirements. 

The auditor shall report in accordance with the applicable audit standards, as agreed in the Specific Conditions. 

The audit report shall include:  

a) the Project name and agreement number,

b) the Project period subject of the audit,

c) reference to the financial reporting framework applied,

d) the auditing standards applied,

e) a statement that the auditor has obtained reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, 

f) the auditor’s opinion.

If any findings have been reported in the Project’s management letter, the Grant Recipient shall prepare a response including an action plan to be submitted to the Donor together with the management letter. 

The costs of the audit of the Project’s financial statements shall be included in the Project’s budget.  

The audit requirements stated in this Agreement are applicable for the total Grant, including any part of the Grant that has been transferred to a cooperating partner.

The auditor of the Project’s consolidated financial statement is responsible for the direction, supervision and performance of the audit of any part of the Grant that has been transferred to a cooperating partner. The auditor shall assure itself that those performing the audit for cooperating partners have the appropriate qualifications, that the audit is in compliance with professional standards, and that the audit report is appropriate under the circumstances. ISA 600 establishes standards and provides guidelines when using the work of other auditors. 

The auditor of the Project’s consolidated financial statement shall express an opinion on whether the statement is prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework and the requirements of article 3. To this end, the auditor shall obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the financial statements of the cooperating partner and the consolidation process. 

Q: Could Norad clarify how it defines a “reasonable absorption ratio” when determining whether a requested budget is proportionate to an applicant’s past annual income? Is there a benchmark percentage or calculation method that applicants should follow? For proposals involving multiple partners, should the absorption ratio be calculated for each partner individually?  

A: We will mainly look at the at the lead applicant’s experience in managing sizable grants. We do not have a specific benchmark. 

Q: We note that the budget template provided online is very topline and does not appear to require any breakdown of in-country costs. However, there is mention in the guidelines as follows: “protection measures for environmental human rights defenders should be specified in the budget”. How should we show that?  Or would that be an area where Norad may request more detailed information when processing applications? 

A: As part of the assessment process, we may request further budget details, including from regional and/or local partners.  

Q: Can activities involving the creation of contingency funds (in this case, applicable to environmental defenders) be proposed? 

A: You may plan for protection measures for environmental defenders. Please be as specific as possible and link the budgeted costs to the objectives of the project.  

Q: Regarding Co-funding / counterpart contributions “...as well as an overview of all other sources of funding for the project.”  

• Should counterpart contributions be detailed by donor/funding source, or is it sufficient to indicate the total amount at the budget? Is it necessary to upload any additional documentation? 
• Should this information be provided for all consortium members or only for the lead applicant?

A: All funding sources must be included and specified in the budget, both by amount and donor/source. A lump sum per donor or source per year is sufficient. We do not require a detailed breakdown of funding per budget line.  

Geographic priorities  

Q: Can we make changes to selected priority countries? 

A: Unless changes are requested by Norad in the invitation letter, please make no changes to selected countries.

Other questions

Q: Although letters of support are not required for Stage 2, are letters of support from government stakeholders allowable to include in the Additonal Information section?

A: Yes, you may consider including this. Please limit the number of attachments.

Q: Would it be possible to have the list of organisations that were invited for the second stage?

A: The following organisations (in alphabetical order) are invited: