Final FFP FY 20 Multi-Year International Emergency APS Amendment 2 South Sudan.pdf

FINAL

SUBJECT: U.S. Agency for International Development/Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and

Humanitarian Assistance/Office of Food for Peace Annual Program Statement for

Multi-Year International Emergency Food Assistance, Opportunity Number

72DFFP20APS00001.

Amendment No. 02: Supplemental Guidance for Partners Engaging in Multi-Year

Emergency Food Security Activities in South Sudan.

Consistent with Section A: Program Description of Annual Program Statement for Multi-Year

Emergency Food Assistance 72DFFP20APS00001, the purpose of this amendment is to request concept paper submissions for Multi-year International Disaster Assistance (IDA) funding under the Multi-year Emergency APS to address emergency and food security needs in five sub-regions of South Sudan. In order to have awards in place prior to the 2020 rains, Food for

Peace/Washington (FFP/W) and Food for Peace/South Sudan are requesting concept papers by

January 17, 2020. Concept papers should budget IDA resources for projects up to three years maximum. All concept papers should be submitted as per Section D: Application and

Submission Information of the APS, no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on

January 17, 2020 for consideration. FFP will consider concept papers received after this deadline only after reviewing those submitted on time, if sufficient or adequate responses were not received, and funding continues to be available.

The purpose of this Amendment is to add value to existing cash, voucher, and commodity resource pipelines through food security activities that increase the impact of FFP-supported famine prevention and food security efforts in the country. Applicants should demonstrate how they will complement existing resource pipelines rather than propose to replace those pipelines. Awards under this amendment will be considered 100% complementary activities in support existing resource pipelines. Such activities should contribute to achieving the goals of

USAID South Sudan’s Interim Country Strategy and to ensuring that FFP efforts strengthen-- and are strengthened by-- USAID/South Sudan’s efforts to accelerate recovery and resilience across the country. Activities performed through this award will contribute to USAID’s Bureau for

Humanitarian Assistance’s (BHA) mission to “save lives, alleviate human suffering, and reduce the physical, social and economic impact of rapid and slow-onset disasters by supporting at-risk populations to build stable foundations for their Journey to Self-Reliance.” While the BHA’s vision and mission statements have been developed, the new Bureau has yet to be fully established.

1. Background

The effects of years of conflict in South Sudan have resulted in a complex crisis characterized by widespread hunger, morbidity, and trauma. A 2018 London School of Economics study estimates that South Sudan’s current civil war has cost the country some 400,000 excess deaths—only half of which were the direct result of combat. Civilians have been systematically targeted by all sides of the conflict, and this has resulted in the displacement of more than 4 million people—1.9 of these internally. Military conflict has both manipulated and exacerbated communal conflict—magnifying its impacts and contributing to the breakdown of social norms and traditional mechanisms of mediation and reconciliation1. Gender based violence (GBV) is pervasive, and UNICEF estimates that more than half of all women aged 15-24 have experienced some form of GBV2.

In addition to conflict, economic decline has acted both as a stressor and shock-- with inflation punctuated with periods of near hyper-inflation wreaking havoc on markets and households already struggling with the costs of survival in a conflict environment. Increasingly erratic rainfall patterns compound the impacts of a lack of adaptive agricultural infrastructure and inputs. Other development deficits in road infrastructure, communications, and basic services --the legacy of previous conflicts—both exacerbate drivers of vulnerability, and complicate efforts to address them. These drivers include high levels of morbidity, malnutrition, unaddressed trauma, and illiteracy and innumeracy-- with women, children and youth being disproportionately affected.

Food security declined dramatically between the outbreak of civil war in 2013, and the signing of the Revitalized Peace Agreement in September, 2018. The Integrated Phase Categorization

(IPC) update issued in September 2019 projected that nearly 5.5 million people - 47 percent of the population - would experience Crisis, Emergency, or Catastrophic levels of hunger (IPC 3, 4 and 5) between January 2020 and April 2020 before deteriorating further during the 2020 lean season. The IPC update conducted in May 2019 identified nearly 7 million people - about 61 percent of the population experiencing IPC 3 or worse levels of food insecurity - the greatest number of people assessed to be living in acute food insecurity since the IPC was introduced in

South Sudan. The decline of food security in South Sudan tracks closely with the country’s decline in agricultural production—something that helps to explain why, despite a robust food assistance response, consumption gaps continue to grow. A five year trend analysis carried out

1 Jana Krause, “Stabilization and Local Conflicts: Communal and Civil War in South Sudan,” Ethnopolitics 18, no. 5 (2019): 478–93.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2019.1640505.

2 UNICEF South Sudan Country Office, "Gender-Based Violence," (January 2019).

https://www.unicef.org/southsudan/media/556/file https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2019.1640505 https://www.unicef.org/southsudan/media/556/file by FAO and WFP indicates that food assistance is preventing Famine—IPC 5, and slowing the growth of the number of people experiencing IPC 4; however, this protective effect does not extend downwards to stressed --- IPC 2 populations (meaning that erosion at this level results in the movement of households into IPC 3)—nor does it facilitate a shift of populations from IPC 3 to IPC 2. This dynamic— protection from IPC 4 and IPC 5, and erosion in IPC 2-- means that the number of households in IPC 3 (and overall number of people in acute food insecurity) continues to grow.

In 2017, USAID FFP began supporting the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) emergency livelihood and food security activities (targeting populations in IPC 3, 4, and 5) and promoting improved coordination with WFP and UNICEF to increase the ability of humanitarian assistance to slow or even prevent the erosion of productive capacity evidenced by the IPC.

These activities have provided food and nutrition assistance and agricultural inputs to vulnerable households engaged or re-engaging in subsistence agriculture (including livestock and fishing) as a way of increasing the local availability of food and restoring household coping capacities.

The idea of more strategically coordinating the delivery of emergency humanitarian assistance to help slow the erosion of food security—and of using the IPC as a measure of resilience as well as food security, underpinned USAID/South Sudan’s promotion of a multi-donor, multi-agency resilience initiative: The Partnership for Recovery and Resilience (PfRR). The PfRR is an inclusive group of donors, UN agencies and NGOs who are committed to promoting local ownership and working together to reduce vulnerability and increase the resilience of people, communities and institutions in South Sudan on their way to achieving the Sustainable

Development Goals. FFP partners WFP, FAO, and UNICEF, as well as a number of USAID’s non-governmental partners are deeply engaged in the PfRR.

2. Contextual and Operational Challenges

Lessons emerging from current activities point to several key contextual challenges. One of these is the conflation of inter-communal conflict with the overarching political conflict, and the overall intensification of violence between cattle-herding communities and between herding and farming communities34. Another is the lack of agricultural adaptive capacity in the face of both predictable shocks and increasingly erratic rainfall patterns. A third is the need to anticipate and prepare for the absorption of significant numbers of “returnees” to areas already at risk of food insecurity. A fourth challenge is that seen in the prevalence of individuals, 3 Iffat Idris, “Livestock and Conflict in South Sudan,” K4D Helpdesk Report 484. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies (2018): 1-20.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6abdec40f0b61a22792fd5/484__Livestock_and_Conflict_in_Sou th_Sudan.pdf 4 Hannah Wild et al. “The Militarization of Cattle Raiding in South Sudan: How a Traditional Practice Became a Tool for Political Violence,” Journal of International Humanitarian Action V3, no. 2 (2018): 1-11.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-018-0030-y https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6abdec40f0b61a22792fd5/484__Livestock_and_Conflict_in_South_Sudan.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6abdec40f0b61a22792fd5/484__Livestock_and_Conflict_in_South_Sudan.pdf https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-018-0030-y households, and communities who are coping with impacts of trauma—impacts that perpetuate conflict, intensify harmful social norms, exacerbate gender-based violence, and hinder aspirations for change. Finally, a widespread lack of information increases vulnerability to manipulation and undermines grass-roots support for the peace process5. Linked to many of these contextual challenges is the role of youth both as a driver of, and potential solution to, household and community-level vulnerability to conflict and food insecurity.

From an operational perspective, infrastructure, communications, and security constraints continue to make South Sudan one of the most dangerous places in the world for humanitarian workers. Relentless rent-seeking and bureaucratic impediments compound the logistical constraints of working deep field. The constant need for both conflict sensitivity and contextual awareness in every aspect of daily operations necessitates additional training and safeguards. Finally, the coordination and integration of emergency interventions—and particularly those addressing food security and livelihoods—have been frustrated by logistical constraints, institutional differences, and competing demands on partners.

Despite these challenges, a reduction in military conflict in many parts of the country since the signing of the Revitalized Peace Agreement has led to cautious optimism that peace and recovery are possible in South Sudan. USAID/FFP is taking advantage of a momentum towards peace at a community level to scale up its support for integrated food security interventions capable of reducing household food consumption gaps and slowing the expansion of humanitarian need.

Key Areas of Focus

A. Restoring Rural Livelihoods and Productivity

2018 production shortfalls were projected to result in a 2019 cereal gap of 524,000

MTs—approximately 40 percent of the country’s cereal requirements. The cereal gap is likely to increase further due to severe late season flooding in parts of the country.

Ongoing insecurity—particularly in Central and Western Equatoria- and continued economic decline underpinned these shortfalls, but erratic rainfall (a prolonged dry spell), pests, and flooding also took their toll. Against this grim backdrop, there are signs of change. The rate of decline in production slowed in 2018, and the country witnessed an increase in land under production for the first time since civil war broke out in 2013.

FAO-supported farmers produced more than a quarter of the country’s production— largely in counties experiencing IPC 3 or higher levels of hunger. In 2019 FAO has more than doubled its target beneficiaries from the previous year, and early projections are

5 For example, a recent survey conducted by the South Sudan Civil Society Forum (SSCF) in October 2018, revealed that respondents who felt well informed about the peace process were twice as likely (54 percent) to believe that the R-ARCSS would bring lasting peace as opposed to those that felt uninformed.

optimistic that production will increase. In addition, increased security and mobility is expected to benefit the country’s fishing and livestock sectors.

FFP will support efforts to promote livelihoods in South Sudan as a means of building savings, restoring productive assets, enhancing self-reliance, strengthening social ties, and more-sustainably reducing household vulnerability to food insecurity. As a source of both income and food, livelihood strategies that support the recovery of agricultural systems—including rural markets-- will be prioritized6. Based on their knowledge of and/or experience with existing emergency agriculture input provision, and attempts to coordinate the provision of food assistance with the provision of agricultural assistance, applicants will propose activities that build on, strengthen, and add value to these efforts. As described in “Modalities” below, applicants should establish partnerships to leverage existing resource pipelines. Partnerships that prioritize innovation supported by evidence and potential for scale-up are encouraged.

Whether on- or off-farm, all proposed livelihood activities should closely reflect community priorities, needs and opportunities, and take into account the specific contextual and operational challenges described above. All agriculture activities should include training in production techniques and sustainable resource management. To strengthen impacts on nutrition, strategies to reinforce healthy nutrition and WASH practices based on the specific drivers of undernutrition in an applicant’s targeted geographic area are encouraged.

Applicants should consider gender and age dynamics within households (HHs), particularly opportunities for youth, as well as idiosyncrasies of household composition impacting the improvement of livelihoods (e.g. lack of labor) 7. Interventions should improve female and youth empowerment, including increased decision-making, agency, participation, and leadership opportunities, while putting in place practices to mitigate harm. This would include approaches that contribute to raising awareness of GBV and preventing it (see Annex 2). The incorporation of opportunities to strengthen basic literacy and numeracy skills as a function of livelihood support is encouraged.

6 For the purpose of this Amendment “agricultural systems” encompasses all livelihoods and skills contributing to or stemming from agricultural production and productivity. These would include both on-farm livelihoods (e.g. the use of improved technologies for crops, fish, and livestock) off-farm opportunities (e.g. processing, marketing, transport, mechanics, construction, tool production, etc), and cross-cutting skills (e.g. savings and loans, financial literacy, etc.)

7 See USAID, Youth in Development: https://pages.usaid.gov/youth/evidence-and-research https://pages.usaid.gov/youth/evidence-and-research

B. Community Cohesion and Disaster Risk Management

Over the past two years, USAID has been working with a variety of partners (including

MSI, IFPRI, FAO, WFP and FEWS NET) to better understand the landscape of vulnerability and the erosion of resilience in South Sudan. Unsurprisingly, conflict and violence— whether linked to the country’s civil war, to longstanding intercommunal grievances, or to the catastrophic breakdown of social norms and community cohesion-- is a key driver of vulnerability and food insecurity across the country8. With the stabilization of the country’s civil conflict, but an unaddressed proliferation of arms (and particularly armed youth) threatening reconciliation and recovery, many communities are actively seeking assistance to manage intercommunal and inter-youth conflict. Supporting community capacities to resist or recover from conflict and strengthening community cohesion are mutually reinforcing in that they recognize existing institutions, relations, and patterns of behavior, while encouraging new relationships and areas of cooperation across potential fracture lines9. FFP will support activities that incentivize inter-generational and inter-community collaboration, and community-based conflict early warning and mitigation activities as an investment in the success of proposed agricultural production and livelihood strengthening efforts. It will also support strategies aimed at addressing the impacts of trauma, when these undermine inclusion and the ability of community members to participate effectively in the planning, prioritization, or implementation of activities10 11.

In addition to direct and indirect impacts of conflict, both crop-producing and herding communities across South Sudan cite drought, flooding, disease, pests, and increasingly variable rainfall patterns as significant threats to their productivity and food security.

Applicants are encouraged to include context-appropriate strategies to strengthen the capacities of individuals, households and communities to anticipate and manage these shocks as part of their efforts to protect the community and household assets and increase the local production and availability of food.

8 Nat Colletta and Michelle Cullen, “The Nexus Between Violent Conflict, Social Capital and Social Cohesion: Case

Studies from Cambodia and Rwanda,” Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 23. The World Bank Social Development Department (2000).

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCIALCAPITAL/Resources/Social-Capital-Initiative-Working-Paper- Series/SCI-WPS-23.pdf 9 Pamela Aaal and Chester Crocker, “Building Resilience and Social Cohesion in Conflict,” Global Policy 10, Issue Supplement 2. Georgetown University (2019): 68-74.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12681 10 For a useful compendium of resources see:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/resources-for-psychosocial-support 11 For more on prevalence of Trauma and PTSD in South Sudan see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5510537/ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCIALCAPITAL/Resources/Social-Capital-Initiative-Working-Paper-Series/SCI-WPS-23.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCIALCAPITAL/Resources/Social-Capital-Initiative-Working-Paper-Series/SCI-WPS-23.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12681 https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/resources-for-psychosocial-support https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5510537/

C. Rapid Response

According to IOM displacement tracking, over 530,000 refugees and internally displaced people have returned to their areas of origin or intended settlement since the revitalized peace agreement was signed in September of 201812. A primary objective of this activity is to support the ability of communities to absorb returning or relocating households in ways that contribute to community productivity and cohesion and mitigate stress on community coping capacities and food security. To this end, FFP will support strategies that enable successful applicants to expand and/or adapt activities to absorb vulnerable returnee households, or, in the event that the seasonal or activity calendar does not permit their absorption into agricultural production, livelihood strengthening, or asset creation activities, to provide them with support as a stop-gap measure while the existing food or cash-based assistance pipelines of resource partners

(WFP and/or FAO) are adjusted to accommodate the influx. This contingency mechanism is not meant to establish another stand-alone resource pipeline; rather it is meant to enable partners to provide an appropriate short-term response to a specific short-term challenge in order to mitigate its potential negative impacts on communities. In addition to unanticipated returns, this might include unanticipated agricultural or food assistance pipeline shortfalls or delays, or the need to jump-start a food security response in the event of renewed displacement. Given the contingency nature of this activity, temporary transfer modalities would likely include local procurement, cash-based transfers, or in-kind distribution of program inputs. Use of this mechanism, and temporary resource transfer modality— would be approved on a case by case basis. For apparently successful applicants, the parameters of this component will be established as part of the co-design process, but is not expected to exceed 10% of the value of the Cooperative

Agreement.

3. Operational Approach and Geographic Focus Areas

These 3-year activities are meant to contribute directly to USAID South Sudan’s jointly funded recovery and resilience efforts, and those of the multi-donor supported PfRR, with the aim of reducing vulnerability to food insecurity and the concomitant need for humanitarian assistance, even in a context of ongoing insecurity and/or returns. USAID/FFP’s participation in the PfRR is also aimed at ensuring that the Partnership’s vision of recovery and resilience is inclusive of the durable integration or reintegration of populations displaced by conflict. PfRR embraces Co-location, Coordination, Convergence and local Commitment as an operational model. Strategies that foster accountable local governance, strengthen inclusive community cohesion, foster

12 International Organization for Migration, "South Sudan Mobility Tracking Round 5," Displacement Tracking Matrix (July 2019).

https://displacement.iom.int/system/tdf/reports/IOM%20DTM%20Mobility%20Tracking%20Base%20Line%20Rou nd%205%20March%202019%2020190719.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=6257 https://displacement.iom.int/system/tdf/reports/IOM%20DTM%20Mobility%20Tracking%20Base%20Line%20Round%205%20March%202019%2020190719.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=6257 https://displacement.iom.int/system/tdf/reports/IOM%20DTM%20Mobility%20Tracking%20Base%20Line%20Round%205%20March%202019%2020190719.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=6257 women’s empowerment, and increase opportunities for youth are at the heart of these efforts.

One of the key PrRR measures of success is a reduction in vulnerability as demonstrated by improvement in IPC status.

For the purposes of this procurement, FFP expects to award up to five (5) Cooperative

Agreements for recovery and resilience activities that complement existing resource pipelines in five (5) geographic areas where the PfRR has already been established or where it is expected to expand to. These areas should be seen as geographic reference points or as hubs for wider rural catchment areas and may include the following illustrative examples:

1. Yambio, an established PfRR area serving as a hub for Western Equatoria.

2. Torit, an established PfRR area serving as a hub for Eastern Equatoria.

3. Wau, an established PfRR area where improved security in and around Wau enables access to Raja, Bagarri, Jur River and points west into Western Bahr el Ghazal.

4. Bor, a planned PfRR area serving as a hub for Greater Jonglei and possibly including areas impacted by recent flooding.

5. “Sobat Corridor”, in Upper Nile state and where PfRR expansion is expected to roll out some time in Year 2 of project implementation; Malakal or Pigi could serve as hubs to reach counties in the Sobat Corridor, such as Malakal, Melut, Renk, Ulang, Nasir, Balliet, Pigi or Fangak; may also include areas impacted by recent flooding.

FFP may also consider funding project activities in PfRR areas not identified above. In already established PfRR areas, successful applicants will be expected to act as full PfRR partners— participating in joint work planning at the state, county, and payam level in support of recovery and resilience frameworks endorsed by the PfRR. In planned or yet to be established PfRR areas, such as Bor and “the Sobat Corridor”, a successful applicant will identify a target area where the opportunity to put PfRR principles into practice exists, enabling FFP partners to effectively lay the groundwork for PfRR expansion in year two and three of the project period. This will entail the successful applicant’s participation in the PfRR at the national level from the start of the award. The final selection of geographical areas and the identification of specific counties and payams will be finalized during the co-design process.

4. Modalities A. Food transfer modalities: Under this APS amendment, FFP is not requiring partners to establish their own continuous pipelines for resource transfers. Food assistance— whether cash-based or in-kind—continues to play a significant role in preventing famine and alleviating severe hunger in almost every county in South Sudan. However, as discussed in the Background section above, despite a robust food assistance pipeline, the number of households vulnerable to food insecurity continues to grow. This is at least partially due to the erosion of household assets and productive capacities necessary to support agricultural production, and it is the main reason that in addition to WFP’s food assistance and UNICEF’s nutrition pipelines, FFP is supporting FAO’s emergency provision of agricultural inputs country-wide. Emergency food, nutrition, and agriculture assistance are at the heart of FFP’s approach to increasing local availability and accessibility of food and reducing vulnerability to famine and hunger in

South Sudan, and together they are the core of this supplemental guidance.

This Amendment solicits partnerships capable of adding value to the existing commodity/cash/voucher pipelines of WFP and FAO—in order to strengthen their impact on the coping and productive capacities of individuals, households, and communities. In addition to increasing efficiency, leveraging existing pipelines should help to limit partners’ exposure to some of the risks inherent in procurement and logistics in South Sudan, and strong partnership agreements can provide additional negotiating power in the face of ongoing bureaucratic impediments by leveraging capacity and multi-donor support. To this end, applicants should demonstrate strong partnership experience, together with evidence of a mutual intent to partner in order to add value to existing food assistance and/or emergency agricultural input pipelines over a period of 36 months.

B. Food Security-Related Activities: Under this amendment and as described in the focus areas above, the following food security related activities are encouraged:

a. Agriculture and Food Security

b. Livelihoods

c. Coordination and Capacity Building

d. Efforts to Strengthen gender equity, empower youth and improve cohesion

e. Disaster Risk Reduction

In addition to these specific activities, operational approaches that reinforce healthy nutrition and WASH practices based on the specific drivers of undernutrition in an applicant’s targeted geographic area are encouraged.

5. Beneficiary targeting and accountability to affected populations (AAP):

USAID/FFP supports the FSL Cluster standard operating procedures (SOP) to ensure that activities are free of political influences and are based on transparent vulnerability criteria.

Together with their resource pipeline partner(s), applicants should demonstrate effective mechanisms and robust feedback loops to inform on AAP concerns including communication and outreach, appropriateness of interventions, issues/questions on distributions, monitoring, and targeting (including perceived inclusion/exclusion errors). Applicants must clearly articulate their methods and systems for conducting vulnerability analyses, beneficiary targeting, and activity monitoring.

6. Monitoring and Evaluation and Collaborative Learning:

In addition to tracking change at a county level through bi-annual Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring System surveys that feed in the country’s IPC analysis, the PfRR has adopted a modified version of the Resilience Index Measurement Analysis (RIMA) methodology to measure reductions in vulnerability and gains in resilience. While an M&E plan and Logframe are not required at the Concept Paper stage, apparently successful applicants will be expected to incorporate relevant PfRR indicators into their M&E plans.

In addition, given the significant need for evidence and learning in the areas of vulnerability reduction, community cohesion, trauma mitigation, youth empowerment and GBV in South Sudan, successful applicants would be expected to actively participate in USAID and PfRR Collaboration, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) platforms.

7. Substantial Involvement

As per Section B. 3 of the APS, and in accordance with the ADS 303.3.11, the cooperative agreements awarded through this Amendment will require the following elements of substantial involvement by FFP:

● Approval of the Awardee's Implementation Plans. For the purpose of this Amendment, implementation plans will reflect a joint planning process.

● Approval of Specified Key Personnel

⮚ Staff with substantive experience working in conflict and post-conflict environments on livelihood and food security interventions will be required. While applicants will not be evaluated on or required to submit key personnel in their Concept Papers, they will be required to submit key personnel for approval as part of their full applications and/or as part of an oral presentation. In addition to the Chief of Party, M&E Lead, technical specialist leads for each focus area are required. USAID will provide additional information and any minimum experience requirements at the outset of the full application merit review stage.

● Agency and Awardee Collaboration or Joint Participation covering:

⮚ selection of advisory committee members

⮚ concurrence on the substantive provisions of sub-awards and for the purposes of this Amendment, use of contingency funds

⮚ monitoring to authorize specified kinds of direction or redirection because of interrelationships with other USAID, host government, or other donor activities

● Agency Authority to Immediately Halt a Construction Activity

8. Submission of Concept Papers

FFP will accept concept papers that support multi-year emergency interventions in the geographies described by January 17, 2020. As noted, five geographic areas are under consideration. FFP anticipates allocating up to $5 million for each geographic area for each year over a three-year timeframe. The format outlined in Section D: Application and Submission Information of the FFP APS For Multi-Year Emergencies will apply for concept paper submissions, with the exception that for Section 2. c “Modality Rationale” applicants will identify the resource transfer (s) to be provided by WFP and/or FAO, and the rationale for any resource transfer modality to be used as part of a Rapid Response activity.

Each applicant is limited to one application to this request. An applicant may be a sub-awardee on applications submitted by other organizations. Sub-awardees may participate on more than one application to this request. FFP will accept consortium applications built around more than one of the five geographic areas mentioned under one partner or in a consortium. In the case of a consortium, the applicant must be the consortium lead and must identify any other members of the consortium or individuals, including international or local NGOs, tied to the implementation of the activity as described in the application, along with all sub-awardees. The respective roles of any other members of the consortium or individuals, including all sub-awardees, must be described, and separate budgets must be attached for each.

Each concept paper will be evaluated using the merit review criteria described in Section E:

Application Review Information of the FFP APS. As described in “Modalities” above, submissions should be closely coordinated with existing and planned interventions in the target geographic area which leverage or complement other existing or planned programs and should demonstrate how the proposed emergency interventions are intended to result in improved recovery and resilience.

Annex

1. Partnership for Recovery and Resilience Overview and Joint Work Planning Example

2. USAID/South Sudan Gender-based Violence Prevention and Response Roadmap