Nutrition-Sensitive Social Protection: Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) in Kiribati

Call description

The World Food Programme (WFP) seeks international and local non-governmental and civil society organisations as national delivery hubs under Field Level Agreements. This call concerns Kiribati only. Partners would work through trusted community structures to deliver social and behaviour change communication (SBCC), supporting nutrition-sensitive social protection, food security, nutrition and preparedness. Household targeting covers recipients of, or those eligible for, government social protection cash transfers, with priority for households with pregnant and lactating women and children under 5.

The detailed call describes an indicative 6-month project delivered in four stages. Its schedule gives an estimated start date of 1 February 2027 and estimated end date of 30 July 2027; the proposal template uses the same implementation period.

Priorities and eligibility

Mandatory partnership eligibility requires a legally registered, non-profit, non-political NGO in the country of implementation. All interested NGOs must register in the UN Partner Portal (UNPP). The call seeks international and local organisations, but their proposed lead must meet the stated country-registration condition.

All NGOs must undergo WFP due diligence and the implementing partner assessment for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse. An NGO not verified through due diligence cannot become a WFP partner, regardless of proposal merit. The call also requires that an NGO not be implicated in corruption, fraud or crimes against humanity. No separate screening date is stated in these passages.

Mandatory partnership conditions include relevant experience in similar activities and target areas, project and financial capacity, community engagement, qualified staff, and established reporting, procurement and financial management systems with two years of audited statements. Required qualifications also include operational presence in target locations and capacity to work with remote-island and cyclone-season access constraints.

WFP will use separate panels to evaluate technical and financial proposals against weighted criteria. The detailed call lists clarity of activities and expected results at 30%, sector expertise and experience at 20%, project management at 20%, local experience and presence at 15%, and cost effectiveness at 15%.

For an NGO that has applied for a WFP Field Level Agreement before, the call states that further cooperation is based on a finalised and successful performance evaluation. This condition is distinct from the general technical and financial assessment.

Priority behaviours include maternal, infant and young child feeding, dietary diversity, safe food and water practices, and drought and cyclone preparedness. Messages must be translated, locally adapted and pre-tested with target audiences before rollout; preparedness content must reflect the national El Niño outlook verified with the National Disaster Management Office. Where a country has no social protection payouts, the call directs messaging towards preparedness, response and dietary diversity.

The portal identifies Phoenix Islands as the location, whereas the detailed call's site table lists South Tarawa, Outer Gilbert Islands and Line Islands, including Kiritimati. These locations should not be combined into an assumed coverage area. Ask WFP which sites govern the application and check the original table because the extracted text splits a site name across passages.

Funding and application requirements

The call directs NGOs to register and submit the complete package through UNPP only, uploaded as a ZIP file. The supplied call passages do not state an alternative submission channel.

The ZIP package must include a letter of intent signed by the head of the organisation, the project proposal narrative in the Annex 1 template, and the project proposal budget in the Annex 2 Field Level Agreement budget template. The narrative template asks for a justification of major costs based on the submitted budget summary.

The required qualifications specify strong English communication and reporting skills; fluency in Kiribati is desirable. This does not by itself establish the required language of every application document. Separately, programme messages must be translated, adapted and pre-tested.

Does WFP require a separate concept note, or is the portal's concept note template the same application document as the Annex 1 proposal narrative? The portal listing and the detailed call use different descriptions; the supplied extracts do not establish that an additional attachment is required. Confirm the applicable template and obtain the budget template before submission.

What funding is available for this Kiribati partnership, and is there a ceiling for an individual proposal? The portal extract shows no indicative budget amount, while the detailed call says implementation depends on funds availability. No total allocation or per-project amount can be established from the supplied extracts.

The application deadline is 14 December 2026. Incomplete and late applications will not be considered.

Recommendations

The indicative implementation period requires foundation work, delivery, adjustment and handover within a short timeframe. WFP also plans a decision before scale-up. Sequence mobilisation, material adaptation and testing, training, feedback and handover in a feasible workplan, with access constraints and the WFP review reflected in the schedule.

Cost effectiveness is an assessed area, and the template asks for major cost justifications and consistency between personnel and budget details. With no ceiling established in the extracts, a budget should be built around the proposed delivery and access arrangements rather than an assumed grant amount. Reconcile staff effort, transport, community delivery and material adaptation with the workplan and explain the major costs in the narrative.

The delivery model depends on linking community communication to existing government systems, rather than proposing an independent cash or food distribution. The proposal should explain how local structures will reach the intended audiences and how activities and results connect to social protection. Set out the behaviour change pathway, delivery roles and government linkages, while confirming the applicable sites and cash-transfer context.