PRIORITY PLAN TEMPLATE 3.1
United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office/Peacebuilding Fund
(PBSO/PBF)
Peacebuilding Priority Plan
(Length - Max. 20 pages)
Summary:
Country:
Amount of any existing PBF commitments in
the country (other PRF or IRF):
Total value of this Priority Plan:
Amount of any existing non-PBF funding
commitments, if any, to the Priority Plan1:
Total amount of funding requested from PBF for
the Priority Plan:
Start date and duration of Priority Plan
Implementation2:
Priority Plan Outcomes:
1
2
Specifically note any funding from the UNDP Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery Thematic Trust Fund
The Peacebuilding Priority Plan may not exceed 3 years.
1
Co-chairs of the Joint Steering Committee3
Name of Senior UN Representative
Name of Government Representative
Signature
Signature
Title
Title
Date & Seal
Date & Seal
(Usually SRSG for mission settings and RC for non-mission
settings).
Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO)
Name of Representative
Signature
Peacebuilding Support Office, NY
Date& Seal
3
If the PBF Joint Steering Committee is not yet established, the most Senior UN representative and a
senior Government representative (usually at Ministerial level) can sign the Priority Plan.
2
N. B. The text in italics is guidance only and should be deleted before submitting the Priority Plan.
I. PEACEBUILDING CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR PBF
SUPPORT
(a) Peacebuilding context: This section summarizes the key findings of the conflict analysis,
including the major conflict issues and triggers and capacities for peace, as well as the
critical current needs. It includes an analysis of how women and men have been both
impacted by the conflict and involved in it. It also highlights why the moment is right for
PBF to provide support now – i.e. have there been any recent developments or are there
any upcoming crossroads for peace which warrant urgent support? Explicit reference
should be made to any conflict analysis exercises that underpin this analysis.
(b) Strategic peacebuilding plans: This section presents any existing national and UN
peacebuilding plans/ frameworks for peace, including their vision and areas of focus. It
should also include key elements of any existing active peace agreements. It should also
situate the proposed Priority Plan vis-à-vis existing agreements and plans.
(c) Partner Government commitments for the success of the Priority Plan: This section
outlines the key commitments by the partner government, which are essential to making
this Priority Plan a success.
(a) Mapping of relevant peacebuilding interventions: This section assesses the existing
peacebuilding interventions by different actors (government, International Organizations,
including the UN system, NGOs, civil society organizations, bilateral donors, etc.) and
financial and programmatic ‘gaps’. Please use the table below for the mapping and make
a link to the conflict analysis presented in section (a).
Table 1 – Mapping of peacebuilding activities and gaps
Priority Plan
Outcome
Source
of
funding
(Government/
development
partner)
Key Projects/
Activities
Duration
of
projects/activit
ies
Budget in $
Ex. : Security
Sector Reform
and Rule of
Law
1) The Gov of
Brazil
1)Brazil:
Support to
police and
military
academies
1) 2 years :
from March
2009 to
February 2011
1) 2 Million
2) UNIOGBIS
+ UNDP
2)UNIOGBIS:
Technical
assistance to
police reform
and reform of
the armed
forces;
2) 1 year: from
September 2010
to August 2011
2) 4 Million
Description of
major gaps in
the Outcome
Area,
programmatic
or financial
US$1 million
($450,000
minimum
estimated per
court and
$100,000 for
equipment) to
complement 2
courts already
rehabilitated
with EU
support)
3
II. OBJECTIVES OF PBF SUPPORT AND PROPOSED PRIORITY PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
(a) Vision of the Priority Plan: This section identifies overall vision of the Priority Plan. It
briefly summarizes the combined impact of Priority Plan Outcomes and explains their
overall coherence, including how they fit together, how they are sequenced and how they
add value to or reinforce each other. The vision and the priorities need to be clearly
linked to the conflict analysis in the previous section. In selecting Outcome Areas,
reference should be made to the PBF Performance Management Plan (PMP) and to its
proposed outcomes and indicators to ensure that outcomes are pitched at the appropriate
peacebuilding level. Gender equality and women’s empowerment should be considered
when defining the objectives of the Priority Plan, in line with the UN commitments to
gender-responsive peacebuilding.
(b) Priority Plan Outcomes: For each of the Priority Plan outcomes identified above, this
section provides an overview, including the following: (i) a clear Outcome Statement; (ii)
a ‘Theory of Change’ explaining the underpinning logic and causal link chain for the
change this outcome is seeking; (iii) expected content of the support, including the scope
and scale of support, target groups, geographical scope, focus of support, envisaged
modalities of support/ implementation approach, with a justification for the proposed
approach. In preparing this section, teams should refer back to Section 3.3 of the PBF
Guidelines on considerations regarding gender equality. Teams should also consider any
Do No Harm issues in selecting specific target groups and geographic areas.
(c) Catalytic effect and sustainability: This section outlines the expected catalytic effects of
the proposed interventions and notes how the effects will be sustained in the longer term.
In particular, how is the Priority Plan creating conditions which will enable longer-term
peacebuilding changes? Also how can the Priority Plan help to mobilize additional
sources of peacebuilding funds? See Guidance Note 5.2: How to programme for catalytic
effects.
(d) UN capacity: This section should provide a brief overview of the UN Team in the
Country, including the overall annual budget (development and emergency) and the staff.
It should include the peacebuilding expertise of the UN, if any, and an outline of the UN
strengths/ value-added, which will be put to use in the Priority Plan implementation.
Please use the following table for the budget.
Table 2: Overview of UN funding in the country
Un Country Team
Key Source of
Annual Regular
Annual emergency
Funding
Budget in $
budget (e.g. CAP)
(government,
donor etc)
Previous calendar
year
4
Current calendar
year
(e) Budget: This section sets out the budget of the Priority Plan by Outcome. The size of the
budget should be justified on the basis of the previous sections. This section should
provide any additional narrative that helps to explain the proposed size of the budget,
including how value-for-money will be ensured. The budget should include a line for the
operational costs of the Secretariat and, if needed, the Joint Steering Committee. It
should also include a line for M&E. A part of the M&E funds (for the independent
evaluation) will be retained by PBSO/PBF.
Priority Plan Outcome
Budget in USD
Any comments
III. PRIORITY PLAN MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
(d) Management and coordination arrangements: This section identifies the key actors
who will take part in the implementation of the Priority Plan, including the Joint Steering
Committee, the technical committee, the PBF Secretariat, the UNCT, RUNOs, the
national and/or local government structures. It should clearly explain their roles and
responsibilities and also illustrate how different interventions will be coordinated and
coherence of the Priority Plan as a programme ensured.
(e) Risk analysis: This section sets out the main risks identified in the Priority Plan that may
jeopardize its implementation, their likelihood, severity, and risk management, including
responsibility for risk management/ mitigation. Risks should include those of a political
and external nature as well as those of programmatic nature. Use the table below for risk
mapping.
Table 3 – Risk management matrix
Risks to the achievement of
PBF outcomes
Likelihood of
occurrence
(high,
medium, low)
Severity of
risk impact
(high,
medium, low)
Mitigating Strategy (and
Person/Unit responsible)
(f) Results framework: This section sets out a Results Framework for the Priority Plan.
Please use the table on the next page to set out the Results Framework and adjust the
number of outcomes and indicators as necessary. The Priority Plan’s results framework
consists of two phases: phase one to accompany the submission of the Priority Plan for
approval by PBSO (shaded in light blue), and phase two to be submitted to PBSO within
30 days of the Joint Steering Committee’s approval of projects against the Priority Plan
(shaded in yellow). For additional information on Results Frameworks, please refer to
Section 7 of the PBF Guidelines.
5
To accompany the Results Framework, brief information should be provided on the M&E
arrangements for the Plan, including the persons who will be responsible for the
collection and analysis of data, the kind of means of verification envisaged and the
budget being set aside for M&E. This will be further strengthened and elaborated on in
an M&E Plan, to be provided with the second phase of the Priority Plan Results
Framework.
6
Table 4 – Priority Plan Results’ Framework
Country Name:
Priory Plan Effective Dates:
Priority Plan Vision Statement:
PPP Strategic Outcome One
Indicators
Priority Plan Outcome 1
PP Indicator 1
Means of
Verification
Budget for the ourtcome
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 2
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 3
Project Outcomes
Project Outcome 1.1:
[insert project outcome statement
language (Project Name - RUNO)]
Baseline:
Target:
Indicators
Means of
Verification
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Project Milestones and
Dates
Project Indicator 1.1.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.1.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.1.3
Project Outcome 1.2:
[insert project outcome statement
language (Project Name - RUNO)]
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.2.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.2.2
7
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.2.3
Project Outcome 1.3:
[insert project outcome statement
language (Project Name - RUNO)]
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.3.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.3.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 1.3.3
PPP Strategic Outcome Two
Baseline:
Target:
Indicators
Priority Plan Outcome 2
PP Indicator 4
Means of
Verification
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 5
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 6
Project Outcomes
Project Outcome 2.1:
[insert project outcome statement
language (Project Name - RUNO)]
Baseline:
Target:
Indicators
Means of
Verification
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Project Milestones and
Dates
Project Indicator 2.1.1
Baseline:
Target:
8
Project Indicator 2.1.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.1.3
Project Outcome 2.2:
[insert project outcome statement
language (Project Name - RUNO)]
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.2.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.2.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.2.3
Project Outcome 2.3:
[insert project outcome statement
language (Project Name - RUNO)]
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.3.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.3.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 2.3.3
PPP Strategic Outcome Three
Baseline:
Target:
Indicators
Priority Plan Outcome 3
PP Indicator 7
Means of
Verification
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 8
9
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 9
Project Outcomes
Project Outcome 3.1:
[insert project outcome statement
language (Project Name - RUNO)]
Baseline:
Target:
Indicators
Means of
Verification
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Project Milestones and
Dates
Project Indicator 3.1.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.1.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.1.3
Project Outcome 3.2:
[insert project outcome statement
language (Project Name - RUNO)]
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.2.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.2.2
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.2.3
Project Outcome 3.3:
[insert project outcome statement
language (Project Name - RUNO)]
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.3.1
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.3.2
10
Baseline:
Target:
Project Indicator 3.3.3
PPP Strategic Outcome Four (standard)
Effective coordination, monitoring,
reporting, evaluation and
communication on the achievement of
the Priority Plan results and the projects
that support it.
Baseline:
Target:
Indicators
PP Indicator 10
JSC Annual Report submitted within 7 days
of the deadline
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 11
Quality of JSC Annual Reports rated
“acceptable” by PBSO review team
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 12
PPP projects fully meet selection criteria,
including value-for-money criteria
Baseline:
Target:
PP Indicator 13
Key partners (e.g. RUNOs as well as non-UN
stakeholders) satisfied with level and
timeliness of PBO communication and
coordination
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Transmittal email of JSC
Annual Report
Report review
matrix (PBF)
Project
selection
criteria
checklist;
minutes of JSC
meetings
bi-annual
partnership
survey
11