Rwanda Sustainable Housing Finance: $35M for Green Mortgages

Captured cycle: This page is retained for historical guidance. Confirm whether the program has reopened before planning an application.

Rwanda Sustainable Housing Finance: $35M for Green Mortgages

This page is written for people who do not want another scraped “announcement card.” It focuses on practical decisions: Is this opportunity real and usable for you, and if yes, what is the least-waste way to act on it.

One-line summary

This record describes a $35 million Rwanda sustainable housing finance facility intended for banks, microfinance institutions, and SACCOs to support affordable green mortgages and micro-housing loans. The only public official page that is clearly reachable in a direct URL check is the main Rwanda Housing Authority homepage: https://www.rha.gov.rw/ (HTTP 200, final URL unchanged).

The page below intentionally separates:

• what we can confirm from official RHA sources,
• what the record currently states but we cannot verify as an active published call,
• and what applicants should do next to avoid wasted effort.

Overview

Rwanda has a long-running policy focus on housing access, urban planning, and infrastructure quality. The Rwanda Housing Authority (RHA) positions itself as the central public body for social and affordable housing and urban settlement coordination, and it publicly states that it works with financial institutions and other state actors on housing-related mandates.

The opportunity label in this dataset suggests a green finance window of USD $35,000,000 for housing loans and possibly microfinance products. The likely model is:

1. A financial institution qualifies for a facility.
2. It on-lends to households through mortgages and/or housing-related credit products.
3. The facility supports affordability and environmental outcomes (energy, materials, water and resilience features where possible).

This is a common structure in housing finance programs, but the key issue is not the concept — it is whether this specific facility has an active, public, official process you can follow right now.

What is actually confirmed so far

The following sources are confirmed at the time of last check:

1. Official base page is reachable and live:
   • https://www.rha.gov.rw/ (urlStatus: 200, no redirect chain change in this check).
2. RHA’s service pages include public descriptions of:
   • social and affordable housing development context,
   • building permit systems,
   • and related public services.
3. RHA publications are available, but several sections return access errors in some paths, suggesting limited crawler or permission issues rather than a guaranteed open list of all official lending programs.

So at a minimum, you can be confident the institution is real and active, but you cannot yet treat this as a confirmed live call unless you obtain the official call document or a dedicated application page link.

At-a-glance facts

Who this opportunity seems to be for

The listing is strongest for institutional lenders rather than households. If you are a household, you are likely not the direct applicant.

Likely direct applicants

• Banks with a formal housing loan portfolio.
• MFIs that can carry lending to households for home construction, improvement, or land-linked improvements through a housing microfinance model.
• SACCOs with adequate internal controls for collateral and long-cycle lending.

Indirectly involved actors

• Construction firms,
• Housing developers,
• NGOs supporting financial literacy or vulnerable borrower support,
• Municipal partners coordinating local implementation.

These actors may not submit direct applications but can still be part of a lender’s implementation ecosystem.

What this facility likely offers (and what is not yet clear)

What is likely intended

From the title and existing record fields, this appears to be designed to lower barriers to affordable green housing credit by:

• giving institutions access to lower-cost long-term funds,
• encouraging financing for climate-resilient or energy-efficient home finance,
• potentially pairing funds with technical support and risk-sharing.

What remains unconfirmed

The following cannot be confirmed from official pages currently visible in a direct browse:

• exact sub-eligibility rules,
• final deadline mechanics and submission windows,
• exact eligible products and maximum loan ticket sizes,
• required credit enhancement percentage,
• explicit scoring matrix and rejection reasons,
• guarantee or risk-sharing structure terms,
• whether 35M is still the active facility size or a historical amount,
• and whether applications are through RHA directly or through a partner pipeline.

If you cannot obtain this written detail, you should treat the opportunity as “pending verification.”

Why this matters for you (before you spend time)

Many teams lose weeks to a program that is technically interesting but operationally unclear. Use this checklist first:

1. Confirm the program is currently open and accepting applications.
2. Confirm your institution fits the applicant category.
3. Confirm your team can show measurable green criteria for loans.
4. Confirm management supports post-approval monitoring (this usually takes longer than approval).

If all four are true, continue with a focused pre-submission effort. If one fails, decide if you can fix that precondition quickly.

Who should apply: practical profile

Banks

You should apply only if you have:

• a dedicated housing product team,
• established collateral valuation and enforcement workflows,
• reliable reporting to both risk and sustainability teams,
• and capacity for multi-department coordination (credit, legal, sustainability, MIS).

MFIs

You should apply only if your model can scale from consumer credit to housing-anchored lending with longer tenors. Micro-lenders often excel in borrower familiarity and community relationships, but housing finance adds:

• longer loan tenures,
• construction supervision risk,
• and repayment behavior under housing lifecycle events (job shocks, family shocks, property delays).

Do not assume “microfinance is enough” unless these are addressed.

SACCOs

SACCO participation is often possible, but only if:

• the SACCO has a disciplined governance structure,
• the board accepts collateral-backed lending complexity,
• operations can handle property documentation and recovery protocols.

SACCOs can be strong here because of member trust, but only if they maintain housing loan discipline from origination to completion.

Eligibility and fit criteria (recorded vs required)

Below is a strict split:

Explicitly recorded

• Applicant type: banks, MFIs, SACCOs in Rwanda.
• Must align with green lending principles.
• Mention of gender-responsive lending.

Must verify in official documents before committing

• Minimum capital and licensing thresholds.
• Minimum operational footprint and branch requirements.
• Geographic coverage expectations.
• Pipeline size minimums and borrower profile targets.
• Whether a partner bank or national institution must pre-approve participation.
• KYC/AML and reporting frameworks expected by program administrators.

Quick pre-qualification scorecard (before submission)

Score each item Yes / No / Need more info:

1. Are we an institutionally eligible applicant category?
2. Can we submit full green-finance definitions in writing?
3. Can we provide gender/inclusion indicators without redesigning systems?
4. Do we have housing loan data disaggregated enough for audit?
5. Can we complete submission within the stated deadline window?
6. Can senior management defend both financial and climate outcomes?
7. Can legal/compliance approve loan policy changes quickly?

If you cannot get three or more “No / Need more info,” pause and prepare first.

Application process: how to proceed safely

Because the exact application path is not publicly confirmed on the homepage path alone, use the following process:

Stage 1 — Verification (48 hours)

• Contact RHA through the official public contact in the website footer ([email protected] and physical office details listed there).
• Ask for:
  • current program notice / call for applications,
  • official eligibility memo,
  • and current application channel.
• Ask directly whether this 35M facility is still active, suspended, or replaced.

Stage 2 — Documentation alignment (1–2 weeks)

Only after confirmation, align your internal dossier to one format:

• one-page concept note,
• credit portfolio snapshot,
• policy attachment showing green lending definition,
• proof of institution eligibility and licensing,
• and compliance statement for gender inclusion and social safeguards.

Stage 3 — Drafting and filing (as specified by official call)

Prepare your package as:

• main application form,
• annexes by topic (risk, legal, environmental, social),
• signed board acknowledgment where required,
• and a clear contact person for follow-up.

Stage 4 — Follow-up and correction cycle

Credit operations usually fail not at first submission but in the correction loop. Keep your team ready for:

• terminology clarification,
• missing annex reformatting,
• and additional disclosures about pipeline quality.

Deadline and timeline handling

Important timestamp reality check

This page currently lists a deadline of 2025-11-03 (November 3, 2025). Since the metadata shows the last local check in 2026, this date likely needs direct confirmation before you act, especially if your institution depends on this for planning.

Do not assume old deadlines stay valid.

Suggested internal schedule

Use this internal schedule when the call is active:

• Week 1: verify official call status and collect requirement matrix.
• Week 2: finalize internal green criteria and policy memo.
• Week 3: compile first draft submission and annexes.
• Week 4: pre-review internally and submit corrected documents.

If the official timeline differs, align to that immediately.

Required materials checklist

Build this as two separate packets: “Core submission” and “Proof pack.”

Core submission (must-have)

• Letter of interest in institution letterhead.
• Updated legal/compliance statement covering licensing status.
• Proposed housing finance product brief:
  • target borrower segments,
  • collateral handling,
  • affordability rationale,
  • repayment structure.
• Gender-responsive lending statement (how women-headed households, low-income households, and vulnerable applicants are reached).
• Expected implementation readiness and staffing structure.

Proof pack (attach if asked)

• financial statements (last 12–24 months),
• housing loan performance dashboard,
• delinquency and recovery procedures,
• environmental eligibility framework (or template),
• evidence of policy board approval.

Internal controls for faster acceptance

• Keep annex numbers consistent (e.g., Annex A, B, C),
• use consistent naming in all files,
• include a single contact point per document set,
• ensure date format is clear and one standard currency format is used.

Decision-making framework: worth your time?

Use this framework before dedicating executive bandwidth.

1) Probability of acceptance

Estimate honestly:

• High if you already have a mature housing portfolio and can map green criteria.
• Medium if you are building readiness but do not have active pilot housing products.
• Low if your institution is consumer-lending only with no housing workflow.

2) Cost of not preparing

Costs of an unprepared application:

• management time spent on unsupported claims,
• internal staff time chasing missing paperwork,
• reputational wear from weak, repeated corrections.

3) Cost of preparation

If you are not ready for housing data and green validation, preparation cost is often lower than the opportunity loss of missing a funded cycle. In that case, use this as a readiness project, not a submission project.

Common mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1. Submitting an “opportunity exists” assumption without official confirmation. Avoid this. Confirm active status first, in writing if possible.

2. Confusing strategic alignment with eligibility. Many institutions meet policy goals but fail technical requirements. Build to checklists, not narratives.

3. Using vague terms like “green finance” without operational definitions. Define exact measurable criteria (materials standards, energy efficiency steps, building quality checks, etc.).

4. Skipping internal approvals until after submission. Senior management sign-off delays are a common rejection trigger.

5. Overstating impact forecasts. Report only what you can measure.

6. Ignoring exclusion clauses. If eligibility requires licensing, collateral readiness, or specific borrower categories, test those first.

7. Submitting documents in inconsistent formats. Keep one numbering system, one language version, and one file naming convention.

8. Treating deadlines as flexible. Even when external dates are unclear, assume strict windows and plan as if final.

Practical selection advice for institutions

If you are a large bank

This opportunity may fit if you already have or can launch a dedicated housing vertical with climate tagging. Your advantage is usually credit infrastructure and scale. Your risk is usually complexity and slower governance turnaround.

If you are an MFI

MFIs are good at borrower engagement but often weaker in long-asset collateral cycles. If you do not currently price construction risk, this facility is still possible but requires strong partner support.

If you are a SACCO

SACCOs can succeed when member discipline is strong and geographic rollout is controlled. Start with one district pilot, measure outcomes, and only scale after first-cycle audit.

Selection readiness milestones (practical)

Use this “green flag” checklist before submission:

• Official opportunity confirmation received from RHA or formal partner channel.
• Eligibility memo mapped to record requirements.
• Internal housing and environmental policy language approved.
• At least one pilot pipeline with realistic borrower flow.
• Inclusion and gender angle defined in measurable terms.
• Internal legal review completed.
• Contact point for post-submission follow-up assigned.

If fewer than 5 boxes are filled, do not submit yet.

Frequently asked questions

Is the facility definitely open right now?

Not confirmed from the official pages currently visible. The homepage is live, but no clear live application page was found there in this verification window.

Can individuals apply directly?

No direct evidence supports individual direct application. The opportunity language indicates institutional applicants (banks, MFIs, SACCOs).

Why is the deadline shown as 2025-11-03?

That is the recorded deadline in this file. Because this is now in the past, it should be treated as a red flag and confirmed directly before any decision.

Can an institution apply without housing-specific products today?

You should be ready with at least one defined housing product pathway (or pilot-ready adaptation) before applying.

How should we include gender criteria?

Use measurable indicators, not slogans. Example: borrower segments, outreach channels, branch-level reporting, approval ratio by target group.

What should we do first in week one?

Call or email official contact and request the official application and terms. Then do a 2-hour internal pre-check before preparing documents.

What if the official page is missing from the website?

Ask for the responsible contact and official process in writing. Some institutions run a partner-led process outside public pages.

Can we use old drafts as submission templates?

Only if terms match current official requirements. Otherwise avoid wasting time on outdated templates.

What if we receive conflicting information from unofficial sources?

Treat unofficial sources as leads only. If there is any conflict with official contact, use official language from RHA/partner channels as authoritative.

Is there a legal risk if we submit early?

There is no legal “submission penalty” unless you misrepresent facts. The practical risk is wasted internal time and credibility loss if your submission is incomplete.

Official links and verification trail

Use only official links when possible. Current verified references used for this review:

• Rwanda Housing Authority homepage: https://www.rha.gov.rw/
• RHA services page: https://www.rha.gov.rw/services
• RHA publications page: https://www.rha.gov.rw/publications
• Social and affordable housing context page: https://www.rha.gov.rw/2/affordable-housing-planning-development

Contact:

• Email: [email protected]

If a new official application page appears, replace these links with the direct opportunity page and update externalURL, resolvedUrl, urlStatus, urlCheckedAt, and urlFailure accordingly.

What to do next (action list)

If you are deciding this week:

1. Print a one-page summary of your institution’s current housing-finance readiness.
2. Send a short official inquiry to RHA with direct questions (open call status, official documents, submission path).
3. Decide internally whether to proceed based on confirmed replies only.
4. If active, build a full package with legal + credit + sustainability sign-offs before final submission.

If you do not receive a clear reply within your internal deadline:

1. Document all outreach attempts.
2. Move the opportunity to “on hold” rather than “submitted.”
3. Keep this record for future windows if your institution improves its housing-readiness score.

Final practical judgment

This opportunity is potentially relevant if you are a housing-focused financial institution and want to expand green, lower-cost lending. However, because the official application path and eligibility details are not currently exposed on the main RHA site, the correct path is verification first, submission second.

Treat this as a disciplined lead with clear uncertainty, not a ready-to-submit opportunity.

If you are reading this to decide whether to invest internal staff time, treat this page as a practical decision aid, not a legal claim that all details are currently active. The official RHA homepage and service pages are visible and stable, but the specific program page for this facility is not openly listed there right now. That means some details that people often mention online (for example, detailed guarantee percentage, pricing terms, or application form URL) must be treated as unverified until you get the actual call document or a direct RHA/partner announcement.

Quick source reality check

I verified the following pages from Rwanda Housing Authority in the same session:

1. Homepage: https://www.rha.gov.rw/
2. Services page (shows RHA service links and the Affordable Housing Demand System partnership): https://www.rha.gov.rw/services
3. Publications page (for official documents and standards): https://www.rha.gov.rw/publications
4. Organization overview: https://www.rha.gov.rw/about-rha/overview

No dedicated public application page for this exact facility was found in those sections during verification. That does not prove the facility does not exist; it means the official landing page is not discoverable there.

At-a-glance summary

What this opportunity is likely designed to do

This facility is framed as a way to support affordable, “green” housing finance in Rwanda through financial institutions rather than direct grants to households. In practical terms, the intended model is usually:

1. A financier (bank, MFI, or SACCO) gets access to a financing mechanism.
2. It then uses that mechanism to support green home buyers through mortgages and/or housing microfinance products.
3. Borrowers can be households that would otherwise struggle with conventional mortgage terms, if the facility is intentionally structured to improve affordability.

The facility concept aligns with known national housing priorities: lower-cost, safer, and more climate-conscious urban growth. But your key decision should not be based on the marketing concept alone. Your team should decide if this is real-time and available by confirming:

• Whether a call is open now.
• Who exactly can apply (institution type, licensing category, and geography constraints).
• What evidence RHA or the implementing institution requires.

What we can confirm from official RHA sources

Even without a dedicated application page, the official RHA pages publicly confirm:

• RHA is a national body with responsibilities in urban settlement, affordable housing, and coordination around construction and housing policy.
• RHA publicly positions housing finance as part of its mission and says it works with other institutions in the housing ecosystem.
• RHA provides service links related to housing demand and permit systems, including AHDS in partnership with Development Bank of Rwanda (through the visible services page link).
• RHA maintains housing-related regulations and standards through its publications.

These are strong context signals, but they are not substitutes for a program-specific fact sheet.

What this opportunity appears to offer

Based on the opportunity listing itself, the likely offer shape is:

• A credit facility in the green housing space.
• A focus on affordability-oriented financing products for homebuilding and home improvement.
• Financial institutions as direct applicants (not households).
• Technical support and risk-sharing elements to help lenders roll out green products.

Because this can look very attractive, it also tempts people to assume details like exact interest rates, guarantee mechanics, and approval quotas. If these have not been verified from an official call note or application guide, treat them as claims that need confirmation, not as guaranteed terms.

How to decide if this is for you

This is the first filter to save your team time.

You should focus on applying if all four statements below are true:

1. You are a financial institution in Rwanda with a legitimate channel to hold and manage mortgage portfolios.
2. You can map your current or planned green home-lending products to an environmental outcome (energy and water savings, material efficiency, resilient construction practices).
3. You can produce baseline data for social inclusion, especially women and vulnerable households, in a measurable form.
4. You can absorb the due diligence and reporting overhead of a blended/innovation-style facility.

If most of those are not yet true, the facility may not be worth pursuing now. Build the internal capability first, then return.

Who should apply

The listing suggests primary applicants are:

• Banks
• MFIs
• SACCOs

That means this is usually not a household applicant opportunity.

If you are a developer, NGO, or consultancy, your role is usually supportive:

• Developer: provide standardized green housing inventory and verified performance data.
• NGO: support borrower education and financial literacy.
• Municipality or project support body: coordinate beneficiary intake and local compliance.

You may still benefit indirectly if you can deliver measurable support to an approved lender.

Eligibility and preparedness checklist

Because the official facility page is not directly visible, use a two-track interpretation:

What is listed

The current record explicitly mentions:

• Licensed financial institutions (Rwandan banks, MFIs, SACCOs).
• A green lending strategy or policy signal.
• Gender-responsive lending orientation.
• Green housing orientation.

What should be considered necessary before applying

Even if not listed in every call note, these are usually needed:

• Valid licenses and operational readiness to underwrite property collateral and borrower credit.
• Internal credit policy that can distinguish green housing loans by measurable criteria.
• Staff capacity to evaluate green compliance without creating major delays.
• Governance process for anti-fraud, data privacy, and audit requirements.
• A documented reason for how this facility improves affordability rather than just changing loan labels.

Documents your team should prepare now

Use this as an internal due diligence pack:

• Board-approved lending policy and where green criteria are embedded.
• A summary of your institution’s current housing portfolio and delinquency profile.
• A pilot pipeline of eligible borrowers or housing projects.
• Compliance map for reporting and social/gender inclusion.
• Internal approval workflow showing who signs risk, legal, and finance decisions.

If those are not ready, build them first before contacting RHA.

Application process (recommended practical workflow)

Since the formal application link is not confirmed in the official pages we checked, your safest path is:

1. Save the source details: facility name, record date, amount, and deadline.
2. Contact RHA via official channels (phone/email/office line) and request one of the following:
   • current call document,
   • official application packet,
   • or a designated contact for housing finance programs.
3. Ask specifically whether this is a:
   • currently open call,
   • archived opportunity,
   • internally managed facility with partner-led access,
   • or replaced by another financing instrument.
4. If the program is active, request and archive:
   • eligibility annexes,
   • scoring methodology,
   • required submission checklist,
   • final submission deadline and timezone,
   • and any language version with signed terms.
5. Do not submit an incomplete concept note unless called for.
6. If you cannot verify official guidance, refrain from using any unofficial application forms shared through social posts or third-party aggregators.

This process may feel slower than expected, but for credit programs it often prevents irreversible compliance mistakes.

Timeline strategy (for internal planning)

Treat timeline planning as a readiness funnel, not just an application countdown:

Month 1

• Confirm whether the opportunity is open and active.
• Identify required application channels and the person receiving submissions.
• Assign internal lead and technical reviewer.

Month 2

• Finalize internal green-lending definitions.
• Prepare a short diagnostic of your institution’s housing portfolio.
• Start collecting pilot borrower and borrower pipeline data.

Month 3

• Draft a clean, two-page summary and a full appendix pack.
• Run a red-team review internally for compliance risks.
• Request confirmation of final checklist from RHA/partner if possible.

Final phase before submission

• Final quality check.
• Board or senior management approval.
• Confirm deadline and submission mode (email portal, hard copy, portal upload).
• Prepare response plan if the request requires revision.

If you have to reverse-engineer too much during submission week, you are late before submitting.

Required materials: practical, not theoretical

Below is a robust baseline package that usually survives first review:

• Official institution profile and license proof.
• Board-approved strategic note showing why green housing finance is prioritized.
• Product design notes for mortgage/microfinance format, repayment schedule logic, and affordability checks.
• Risk framework for default, liquidity, and collateral.
• Environmental compliance method (how a property earns “green” status).
• Gender and inclusion target (if the facility expects this).
• Monitoring and reporting template (what you can measure quarterly).
• Signed internal readiness memo from finance, legal, and operations.

You do not need a polished “investment-grade prospectus” on day one. But everything above should be available in a draft that can be edited quickly if the call requires format changes.

How to evaluate worthiness in 30 minutes

Use this fast scorecard before investing senior hours:

1. Is the facility still active and reachable from official channels? Yes / No / Unclear
2. Do we qualify as an eligible applicant type? Yes / No / Partially
3. Can we deliver minimum green-lending evidence in 4 weeks? Yes / No / Needs work
4. Is expected transaction size meaningful versus your staff effort? Yes / No / Unknown
5. Can we absorb reporting and verification demands without operational stress? Yes / No / Needs work
6. Do we have management support to stay engaged through approval and post-approval monitoring? Yes / No / Unclear

If you score mostly “No” or “Needs work,” pause and build capabilities before applying. If you score mostly “Yes,” proceed with a structured pre-application pack.

Applicant fit: practical recommendations

For banks

Use this facility only if you have or can build:

• Stable mortgage workflow,
• Strong credit scoring and recovery systems,
• Clear legal team process around property and collateral documentation.

For MFIs

Focus on small-ticket, incremental builds if your model is in household-level lending. Start with a narrow geography and a repeatable underwriting template before scaling.

For SACCOs

SACCOs can excel at community trust and repayment discipline, but must prove that they can handle housing collateral workflows, not only savings and short-cycle credit products.

For all applicants

• Keep your messaging simple.
• Show exactly how affordability improves for households that are currently underserved.
• Separate “environmental goals” from “financial viability goals” clearly.

Readiness mistakes to avoid

• Submitting broad language without operational definitions.
• Treating “green” as branding instead of measurable standards.
• Ignoring whether the facility is active, open, and assigned a current acceptance desk.
• Assuming guarantees, rates, and term lengths from secondary content.
• Underestimating monitoring overhead.
• Neglecting gender and inclusion commitments even when listing them in the proposal narrative.
• Starting outreach without obtaining a confirmed contact point for the facility.

FAQ

Is this a grant or a loan?

Not enough confirmed public detail is available from the currently discoverable pages to state this with certainty. The title and description strongly suggest a credit facility structure, but use the official call document if you need legal certainty.

Is it really an RHA-managed program?

The record points to RHA as the source, and RHA pages are stable and public. But because the dedicated application page is not visible in the checked pages, confirm the implementing agency details before submitting.

Can ordinary households apply directly?

Based on the listing, this appears to be lender-focused, not household direct.

Is the listed deadline reliable?

The listing states November 3, 2025. Treat this as potentially stale unless you receive a current publication.

How important is gender lens language?

Very important if this is a public development-oriented housing finance product. But your proposal still needs measurable implementation, not generic commitments.

Can this replace traditional mortgage programs?

Usually no. Think of it as a dedicated instrument that should complement your normal product stack, unless the official terms explicitly replace one.

Common mistakes that reduce approval probability

Mistake 1: Overstating readiness

Teams often claim they already run green lending but cannot show internal standards. Publish definitions and examples.

Mistake 2: Basing strategy on one PDF only

Relying only on a scraped summary leads to mismatched requirements and avoidable rejections. Build an institution-level verification trail.

Mistake 3: Underbuilding the post-approval system

Lenders can lose a facility if they cannot report performance indicators consistently after disbursement.

Mistake 4: Weak governance approvals

If your board has not approved green strategy and implementation roles, delay is likely inevitable.

What to do next (today)

1. Capture your internal decision: check the official source, monitor, or wait.
2. If you want to apply, prepare the baseline pack listed above.
3. Use official channels to confirm the active call status before drafting full submissions.
4. Ask RHA for the precise call document and keep all communication on record.
5. Update your team timeline so legal and credit do not become bottlenecks at the end.

Official references

• https://www.rha.gov.rw/
• https://www.rha.gov.rw/services
• https://www.rha.gov.rw/publications
• https://www.rha.gov.rw/about-rha/overview

Bottom line

This is a promising category of opportunity if your institution is already in housing finance and can operationalize verified green lending standards. It is less promising if the program has not been clearly confirmed as active in the official documents and channels you use for submission.

The best position is to proceed in phases:

• Confirm the current call.
• Build evidence, not narrative.
• Keep your proposal practical and auditable.

That approach protects your organization from spending months on a call that may no longer be open, and improves your chances if it is.