4. Application

Applicants are advised to follow the instructions in the call for proposals diligently as failure to do so will normally result in the application being rejected.  

Application processes may be in one or two phases. In one-phase processes applicants will be requested to submit a full application immediately. In two-phase processes applicants will first submit a brief concept note, which will be screened by Norad. Following this, a few selected applicants will be invited to submit a full application. Note that some of the applications that are selected for phase two may also be rejected in the final assessment process.

Applications shall, as a main rule, be submitted in Norwegian or English.

Please note that no applicants are entitled to a grant, even if they meet all the formal and practical criteria. 

Sections

4.1 Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) and Strategic Knowledge Management

4.2. Risk Management

4.3. Conflict Sensitivity

4.4. Budget

4.1 Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) and Strategic Knowledge Management

• Norad emphasises the importance of strategic knowledge management to improve learning and ultimately results. Evaluations and research can be a vehicle for development. Strategic knowledge management entails the deliberate planning and implementation of knowledge management practices to improve the efficiency, cost effectiveness and long-term impact of Norwegian aid efforts. It focuses on leveraging knowledge as a strategic asset to enhance decision-making, innovation, and adaptability. It includes drawing on existing knowledge and using monitoring and high-quality evaluations to generate new knowledge, learn and adapt. This approach ensures that knowledge is used to anticipate challenges, shape policies, and drive organisational learning and improvement. In light of this, the following is expected from applicants: 

  • Grant applications must include a results framework or other description of the planned results of the project. Norad believes that a solid knowledge base and system for results management increases the likelihood of a successful initiative. Defining clear objectives and ensuring collection, analysis, and use of results information throughout the implementation cycle facilitates learning and allows for adjustments and decision-making based on evidence.  
  • The planned results must have a clear link to the objectives and criteria in the call for proposals. Note that the call for proposals may include indicators for the grant scheme as a whole, which applicants must be able to report on.  
  • Norad does not have a standard format, template, terminology or methodology for monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL) approaches. Instead, partners are expected to use their own systems. However, the following must be included in an application: 
  • A problem analysis: focusing on the nature and scale of the problem that the project is trying to address as well as the main causes of the problem; 
  • The key results the project is aiming to achieve, expressed as clear, measurable, and realistic results statements at different levels (often called impact/effects on society, outcomes/effects on target group and outputs. NB! A formulation of the expected impact of a project is not required for humanitarian assistance); 
  • A theory of change: An explanation – typically a narrative description but can also be accompanied by a figure - of why and how the project is expected to achieve its planned results. This should articulate the sequence of change between activities and results at different levels.  
  • The theory of change and results framework (or corresponding document) should focus on the most critical areas of change the project will contribute to, and do not need to capture all results. Bear in mind that these elements form the basis for progress and final reports to Norad. Thus, they should be at a level that allows for reporting, while at the same time remaining useful to the partner in their own assessment of progress and needs for adjustments during implementation.   
  • Calls for proposals from Norad will often request applicants to describe the knowledge base for their theory of change. Applicants should refer to research and evaluations to provide evidence that the proposed project will be effective. Applicants should be able to substantiate whether, how and why a project is likely to be successful, including the following: 
  • Key underlying assumptions that are critical for the project’s results achievement must be outlined. These should either be justified by existing evidence (with links or explicit references to literature/documentation), or there should be a plan assessing these assumptions in the agreement period. 
  • Information about how progress will be monitored, i.e. the set-up for collection, analysis and use of results information.  
  • An explanation of why the proposed project/action can be considered best practice (“best in class”), or, if it is not, a justification for the selected project design. 
  • Norad encourages partners to, when relevant, define knowledge gaps and consider methods for addressing these.  

  Norad encourages applicants to present an overarching knowledge management plan that broadly covers the support (project) period.  The knowledge management plan should describe how learning from knowledge is going to be utilised strategically to refine programming and close evidence gaps. The scope and ambitions of the applicant's knowledge work should be proportional to the size of the project. 

  • Norad encourages innovative projects or projects within areas where the evidence knowledge base is sparse. In such cases, applicants are invited to present a plan for testing hypotheses and build evidence, for example through pilots. 
  • Knowledge products (e.g. evaluations, reviews and/or research projects) should be clearly linked to specific elements in the theory of change and/or knowledge gaps, programming or strategic objectives in the organisation. The plan should also state what type of research/evaluation methodology is going to be used in the development of each knowledge product. All planned evaluations should be of high professional quality and be based on appropriate social science and evaluation methodology. 
  • It is important that the grant recipient takes active ownership of its knowledge management. Norad’s partners can and should define their own needs, what type of knowledge framework their efforts should have, and how they should manage information they obtain from this. More substantial knowledge efforts can replace other sources of evidence and information for projects: longitudinal research can, for example, replace the need for a standard baseline, midline and endline evaluation.  
  • Where and when appropriate, experimental and quasi-experimental studies (including randomised controlled trials or randomised impact evaluations) are encouraged. Impact evaluations should as a rule also include a cost analysis, to make it possible to assess cost-effectiveness. For further details on cost effectiveness analysis, see guidelines here.  
  • The application should also include a clear and realistic plan for data collection and monitoring. This plan should include sources, methodologies and timelines for data collection. Baseline values are normally expected at the time of application. It is important to consider the feasibility of data collection in terms of timeliness and quality.  
  • For applications spanning multiple themes and/or geographical areas, Norad will focus its assessment on the applicant’s set-up for overall results management, i.e. how the organisation will monitor and report on results across the various projects. In such cases, an overarching results framework (or corresponding document) should outline key expected results for the entire application. 

  Norad aims to facilitate evaluations of long-term effects and may therefore wish to provide funding for evaluations that stretch over multiple years. Financing these can be challenging, both due to their high costs and possibly extending beyond the usual budget cycle. Applicants are advised to liaise with Norad about such needs and how such evaluations potentially could be realised. 

  • To strengthen learning and quality in development assistance, partners are encouraged to make knowledge and data available to other aid organisations. As a general rule, data collections, research and evaluation reports funded by Norad should be accessible to the public and published in a timely manner. 
  • Norad values a collaborative approach, encouraging applicants to work with local stakeholders, institutions, and other actors to ensure that knowledge generated is contextually appropriate. Applicants are therefore encouraged to ensure that local knowledge environments play central, and preferably leading, roles, possibly in collaboration with Norwegian or other knowledge environments. This will contribute to locally led development and ensure that knowledge generation contributes to the goal of strengthening the local civil society. 

4.2. Risk Management

• A solid system for risk management will increase the likelihood of a successful initiative. Norad therefore expects applicants and grant recipients to consider risks when designing a project, implement mitigating measures, monitor risks continuously during implementation, and update their risk analysis as necessary during implementation. Norad may request updated risk analyses during the implementation of a project.
• Risks are defined as circumstances or events that could have a negative effect on results or surroundings.
• In general, applicants should consider two types of risks:
  1. Risks that may have a negative effect on the achievement of results, for example corruption. Both internal and external risks should be identified. Internal risks are typically linked to the way the project(s) is/are organised and implemented, and may be related to for example the systems, capacity or leadership in the implementing organisation(s), or the way that stakeholders interact. External risks are normally outside the direct control of the grant recipient, for example political risks (including armed conflicts) and natural disasters. Although it may be difficult to influence the probability of external risks occurring, it may be possible to mitigate the consequences.
  2. Risks that the project itself may have unintended negative consequences on the surroundings. Note that risks related to the four cross-cutting issues for Norwegian Official Development Assistance (see below) must always be considered and mitigation actions planned for. Risks related to sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH) must be included in the risk assessment, where relevant, and mitigation actions planned for.
• Norad does not have a standard format, template, terminology or methodology for risk management. Instead, applicants are encouraged to use their own internal systems. However, the risk analysis should ideally be presented through a matrix or table, where each risk is identified and categorised according to the likelihood of occurring and consequences should it occur, based upon which a total risk score (risk = impact x probability) is calculated. Applicants are furthermore expected to outline planned mitigating measures.
• Norad encourages partners to set aside a sufficient budget for risk mitigation measures.
• Norad’s risk appetite is not constant but will, in general, vary according to Norway’s political priorities, the significance and scope of the project, etc. Hence, we will often decide to fund humanitarian interventions that carry a very high level of risk, but which are likely to save the lives of a large population.

Cross-Cutting Issues

• The risk analysis must include an assessment of the risk that the project may have an unintended negative effect on one or several of the four standard cross-cutting issues for Norwegian aid.
• The four cross-cutting issues are:
  • Human rights, with a particular focus on participation, accountability and non-discrimination
  • Women’s rights and gender equality
  • Climate and environment
  • Anti-corruption
• All applicants and grant recipients must do their utmost to mitigate risks of unintended consequences for the four cross-cutting issues during implementation of the project.
• In situations when applicants conclude that there are no risks of unintended negative effects on one or several of the cross-cutting issues, this must be explained in the application.
• If it is highly likely that the project may have negative impact on one of the cross-cutting issues, this is regarded as a problem – not a risk – and should be addressed accordingly in the project design. If there is uncertainty as to whether the negative effect on a cross-cutting issue will occur, this is regarded as a risk and should be mitigated and monitored throughout the project accordingly.

Cross-Cutting Issue: Women’s Rights and Gender Equality

All women, men, and gender-diverse individuals have equal human rights, and should have equal opportunities to realise those rights. Social norms, legal rights, and social and economic institutions define the opportunities and barriers women, men and gender-diverse individuals face in different societies. These often discriminate against women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals. The power relations linked to gender are often unequal and limit opportunities and self-determination.

Thus, it is important to understand the context when assessing whether a project may have negative effects on women’s rights and gender equality.

Examples of risk factors for gender equality as a cross-cutting issue may relate to participation and decision making connected to the project for either women, men and/or gender-diverse individuals. Other relevant cross-cutting risks factors may include risks related to gender-based violence.  It is advisable to assess how risks to gender equality may intersect with other risks, for example climate or environmental risk factors, based on a Do No Harm approach.

Control questions:

• Could the intervention lead to or intersect with discrimination based on gender? If so, how could such effects be mitigated?
• Could the intervention have negative effects on women, men or gender-diverse individuals' access to social services, labour markets, or other resources?
• Could the intervention increase individuals’ vulnerability to gender-based violence?
• Could the intervention weaken the position of women, men or gender-diverse individuals in the community or society, for example in terms of participation or access to decision-making, or legal status and rights?
• Could the intervention reduce women, men or gender-diverse individuals’ income, livelihoods etc.?
• Human beings are not a homogenous group. Are some groups of women, men or gender-diverse individuals more likely to be negatively influenced by the intervention than others?

Cross-Cutting Issue: Human Rights

Human rights, as recognised in international human rights treaties, apply to all human beings. Applicants are required to include human rights in their risk assessment of cross-cutting issues. Human rights must be included in the risk assessment from a "do no harm" perspective. It is important to assess whether a project may have negative effects on the human rights of any group affected by the work, such as women, persons with disabilities, children, ethnic minorities, indigenous groups or sexual minorities.

An important starting point when assessing possible negative effects on human rights is to get an overview of the human rights situation in the country and the sector concerned. It is useful to check which human rights treaties the recipient country has ratified and what recommendations it has received from the relevant treaty body. If a state has not ratified a human rights treaty that is particularly relevant for the project in question, the human rights set out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights are considered customary international law and binding on all states.

Particular attention should be given to the following key human rights principles: non-discrimination, participation and accountability.  

Control questions:

• Non-discrimination: Could the intervention discriminate – directly or indirectly – a specific group, such as people with disabilities, women, children, ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples or LGBTIQ+ individuals? Could the project underpin discriminatory legislation or practices?
• Participation: How can we ensure that all individuals and communities potentially affected by the intervention have access to information and meaningful participation in decision-making processes and risk assessment? Are there any barriers to participation by specific vulnerable or marginalised groups? For example, will persons with disabilities have the possibility to participate in the design, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project?
• Accountability: Who are the relevant duty bearers and rights holders? Could the intervention reduce the ability of the government to fulfil its human rights obligations or the ability of rights holders to enjoy their human rights? How can relevant and accessible accountability mechanisms be established to protect the rights and dignity of the people affected by the project?
• You may also want to consider whether the project can help foster a culture of respect for human rights within the organisation and with partners.

Cross-Cutting Issue: Environment and Climate

It is crucial that development aid tries to avoid and minimise any negative impact on climate, environment, and biodiversity. According to the most recent World Economic Forum Global Risks Report, risks related to climate change and biodiversity loss represent the top four global risks in the next 10-year period. Poverty and environmental degradation are inextricably linked, and the poorest are often the most dependent on natural resources for their survival. Climate change, deforestation, drought and pollution hit the poorest the hardest. As such, poverty alleviation cannot succeed without protecting nature, strengthening climate resilience and supporting a low carbon development.  

Control questions:

• Is the project likely to lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, nature loss, water loss, pollution or generate waste? If so, what steps are taken to minimise these negative impacts?
• For projects that involve larger infrastructure, has an Environmental Impact Assessment been conducted?
• Does the project take into account the effects climate change and nature loss may have on the realisation of the desired outcomes of the project? How is the risk that climate change or nature loss may harm the projects’ outcomes minimised?
• Is the project in line with Nationally Determined Contributions, National Adaptation Plans and/or National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, where relevant?
• You may also wish to consider to what extent the project may contribute positively to climate adaptation, biodiversity and/or a low carbon development.

Cross-Cutting Issue: Anti-Corruption

Considering anti-corruption as a cross-cutting issue in a project means considering whether the project could create or perpetuate corrupt practices or structures in the project, local community, region or country. Typically, corruption manifests itself through bribes, extortion, conflicts of interest, nepotism, facilitation payments, collusion, etc. Corruption undermines democratic institutions, slows economic development, and contributes to governmental instability. The negative effects of corruption on economic development are well documented, and the burden on poor people is particularly great.

It is important to know the context when assessing whether a project could contribute to increased corruption or the perpetuation of corrupt practices.  

Control questions:

• Could the project itself lead to more corruption?
• Does the project involve training and capacity building? It is important to bear in mind that training and the related costs are areas that are particularly vulnerable to misuse of funds and corruption and there may be several issues to consider relating to the selection of participants and the compensation provided, to ensure that a culture of corruption is not reinforced. 
• Does the project involve procurement? If yes, are appropriate procedures, including controls, documented and followed in practice? 
• Are there any factors in the project that could reduce the degree of transparency and openness in the community, region or country, and that make accountability difficult? 
• What steps have been taken to ensure the active participation of the staff, target group, and stakeholders? 

4.3. Conflict Sensitivity

• Norad expects partners to adopt a conflict sensitive approach, i.e. to aim to systematically ensure that projects do not unintentionally contribute to conflict but instead prevent and mitigate the risk of negative impact and strengthen opportunities for peace and inclusion.

4.4. Budget

• Grant applications must include a budget. The budget must show how the grant will be used to achieve the planned results and forms the basis for the financial reports.
• Norad has no standard detailed budget template but may provide a template for the overall budget in some call for proposals. In case no standard template is provided, applicants are encouraged to submit a budget which shows the following:
• planned cost per outcome/results;
• the proportion of costs that are planned to incur at HQ, regional, country level; and
• the amount that will be sub-granted to implementing partners.
• Norad may request a more detailed budget for the full or part of the project, to assess whether the budgeted costs are relevant and reasonable. In assessing the budgeted costs Norad often pays particular attention to the following:
• Salary policy, including the approach to benchmarking in the organisation and with partners. Disclosure of the highest salary levels in the project at various levels (HQ, country office/regional office, local partner);
• Other internal procedures that contribute to cost-effectiveness;
• Cost drivers for the project;
• How the applicant ensures that the correct input factors are budgeted for and at the right level (quantity);
• How budget collaboration takes place between the applicant and possible sub-grantees and how the applicant ensures that prices in the local budget are at a reasonable level.
• The budget must comply with the following requirements:
• be properly balanced, with expected income and expenditure being the same;
• cover the entire project period as well as the full costs of the project necessary to deliver the planned results, i.e. not only Norad’s contribution;
• be specific enough to allow for assessment, i.e not budget with "miscellaneous costs", a contingency reserve or large “other costs”; 
• be in a format that is appropriate for financial reporting;
• specify the contribution towards indirect operating costs, if relevant; and
• state the currency used, and the exchange rate(s), if relevant.
• The grant, including accrued interest, shall be used exclusively to finance the actual costs of the implementation of the project during the support period. To be considered eligible in the context of the project, costs must:

• Be necessary for carrying out the project; 
• Be real costs borne by the grant recipient and comply with the principles of sound financial management;
• Be recorded in the grant recipient’s accounts, be identifiable and backed up by supporting evidence; and
• Be in compliance with the provisions of the grant agreement.
• The currency used in the budget should be the functional currency of the project. i.e. the currency that is mainly used in the project. Applicants carry the exchange rate risk. Note that the grant agreement will specify the allocated funding in NOK. Norad will use the exchange rate on the day of signature of the grant agreement to calculate the NOK amount for projects that have a budget in another currency.
• In addition to the requirements above the following also applies:
• The applicant may propose to Norad that the budget should include costs for necessary risk mitigation as well as audits, evaluations and other “wrapping-up” costs that incur also after the end of the support period. Note that the grant may not be used to purchase or construct real property (land, buildings) unless explicitly approved by Norad.
• No-profit rule: Grants from Norad may only be used to cover actual costs/expenses. No profit can be made from the grant. Any unspent funds must be returned to Norad.
• No double financing: The applicant must state all sources and all amounts of funding received or applied for in the projects annual financial statements.

Contribution to cover the recipient’s indirect operating costs 

• Grants from Norad may include an amount as a contribution to cover the recipient’s indirect operating costs. The contribution must be included in the budget and reported in the project accounts, but Norad will not require a specification of these costs. 
• Indirect operating costs = Costs that cannot be directly linked to the implementation of the specific project, including costs for administration and support functions at the recipient. 
• The contribution to cover the recipient’s indirect operating costs is normally up to 5% of direct project costs, a maximum of 7% for projects with very high involvement and costs at the head office. Rates beyond this are only granted exceptionally and are specially justified. 
• What is considered indirect operating costs can vary depending on the type of effort, recipient, and/or other external factors. Following are some examples of costs that Norad usually considers as indirect operating costs: 
  • Rent and related operating costs for the head office (lighting, heating, cleaning, etc.) 
  • Accounting and auditing of accounts for the recipient’s overall operations 
  • Salaries for personnel in support functions and management not employed within the project 
  • Security measures, bank guarantees, legal assistance not within the project 
  • Rental and purchase of equipment used in daily operations not directly related to the project 
  • Communication (telephone, postage, bank) 
  • Printing and copying of general material (for daily use/operations, not project-related) 
  • Taxes, fees, and charges 
  • Normal maintenance costs 
  • Office supplies 
  • ICT services and equipment 
• Indirect operating costs cannot be included in the direct costs of a project. 

Own contribution

Certain calls for proposals may include a requirement for co-funding, or an own contribution, from the applicant. This applies particularly to grants funded under the budget chapter and post 170.70. Civil Society. This requirement underscores that civil society is independent from the Government and also serves to demonstrate that the organisation assumes ownership for and prioritises a project and is able to mobilise support for it.

The following applies to own contributions:

• Applicants must provide minimum 10% in own contribution, unless otherwise specified in the call for proposals. Under some call for proposals a contribution by the applicant that exceeds 10% will be looked upon favourably in the assessment of the application.
• The requirement only applies to applicants from Norway or other OECD member countries.
• The call for proposals may include possibilities to apply for an exemption.
• Grants for public information projects are always exempt from the requirement for own contribution.
• For umbrella organisations, there is no requirement to provide an own contribution towards the costs of the secretariat. Also, members of the umbrella organisation only have to provide a 5% own contribution (only when the grant is provided through the umbrella organisation).
• The own contribution by the applicant must be stated in the budget.
• The value of property and workforce cannot be considered towards meeting the requirement for own contribution. The own contribution may not originate from other Norwegian public funds.