Devinit-地方和国家合作伙伴的间接成本：政策和实践映射（英）-2024.10-17页_237kb

Indirect Costs for Local and National Partners: 2024 Mapping Analysis Summary

1 Overview

This report updates the mapping of policies and practices regarding the allocation of indirect costs (ICR) to local and national humanitarian partners. Development Initiatives (DI) has tracked changes since its 2022 initial assessment. Overhead costs, often called "indirect costs," are essential for the management and administration of humanitarian programs. Donors and intermediary organizations generally agree that providing these costs to local and national partners is crucial for effective aid delivery.

Key points include:

• The Grand Bargain, a global agreement on aid delivery, emphasizes equitable partnerships.
• The IASC (Inter-Agency Standing Committee) and UN agencies have developed guidance on this topic.
• This mapping shows positive developments, such as an increased number of signatory organizations with policies supporting ICR (from 8 in 2022 to 25 out of 67 signatories as of the 2024 update).

2 Mapping Methodology

• DI gathered information directly from organizations or summarized it from Grand Bargain Self-Reporting Mechanism data.
• The mapping includes donor agencies, UN agencies, International NGOs (INGOs), and RCRC organizations.
• Organizations included are not exhaustive; DI invites any updates.

3 Donor Policies (Summary by Key Changes)

National Government Donors

• Belgium: Developing policy but has guidance on earmarked funding.
• Canada: Provides up to 7.5% of direct project costs for overheads.
• New Zealand: Allocates up to 10% for overheads and an additional 10% if partners are local.
• USA: Raised the de minimis rate from 10% to 15% for local NGOs.

Other Donor Agencies

• Norway: No specific policy; plans to develop one.
• Switzerland (SDC): Provides overhead support universally, based on partner-specific negotiations.
• UK: Has guidelines but not fixed policies; has a localisation support framework.

4 UN Agency Policies (Summary)

• FAO does not cover overheads.
• UNICEF provides a standard 7% ICR with flexibility.
• UNHCR allocates 4–7% depending on partner nationality.
• WFP provides a fixed 7% at no reporting cost.

Many UN agencies support unrestricted overhead contributions where required.

5 INGO Policies (Summary)

• CARE: Supports local partners to recover full indirect costs where donors allow.
• Dutch Relief Alliance: Shares 6–8% for core operations and provides capacity funds.
• Mercy Corps: Aims for full cost recovery but requires partner methodologies.
• Oxfam: Provides guidance but encourages experimentation by member organizations.
• Save the Children: Piloting new ICR approaches on selected donor accounts.

Many INGOs are implementing innovative and flexible ICR models.

6 RCRC Organizations Policies

• ICRC: Provides National Societies with administrative support at 7% or fixed costs.
• IFRC: Still in development but is testing local partners' ability to recover 6–7% of indirect costs.

RCRCs are exploring adaptive models to align with local partnership needs.

7 Key Terms Explained

• De Minimis: A donor-set rate (currently raised to 15%) used to cover minimal indirect costs.
• ICR (Indirect Cost Recovery): Refers to the allocation of operational support costs to partners, even though they are not direct program costs.
• True Cost: Covers all necessary operational expenses beyond standard ICR percentages, aligning with full cost recovery.

This summary highlights progress in enabling local partners while noting ongoing challenges, particularly in transparency and consistency. DI continues to update this mapping annually.