Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 11
11
Rejected
Review FCDO accountability frameworks to support local implementers in meeting funding requirements
Recommendation
We recognise that there is sometimes a gap between the accountability expectations of donors and the capacity of local implementers. We recommend that in the next six months the FCDO reviews its accountability frameworks ensuring they are fit for purpose and makes sure resources are available to support local implementers to meet the appropriate and realistic requirements and develop their ability to handle international funding. (Recommendation, Paragraph 46) 33
Government Response Summary
The government partially agrees, acknowledging the difficulty for local implementers to meet FCDO's accountability frameworks. However, it does not commit to reviewing its frameworks or directly resourcing local implementers, instead proposing to leverage its downstream delivery chain by using larger partners to channel funds and provide guidance.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
Government Response: Partially Agree 26. The FCDO’s Programme Operating Framework (PrOF)2 sets out requirements for projects delivering UK ODA to ensure strong protections and safeguards across all funded activities. These requirements include comprehensive measures to prevent and address fraud, corruption, sexual exploitation, abuse, harassment, and other forms of misconduct. They also establish standards for financial management, ethical behaviour, and the protection of vulnerable groups, with the overarching aim of maintaining the highest levels of integrity, accountability, and safety throughout the delivery chain. These requirements apply to all projects and downstream agreements; not only to energy access-related projects. We recognise that it can be very difficult for some local, and especially small and early-stage, implementers to meet these requirements and that this can be a barrier to inclusion of local partners. Recognising the importance of an increasing shift to local leadership in the coming period, it may be that these requirements will be reviewed, there will rightly continue to be a strong degree of priority on managing fiduciary risks, safeguarding etc, and due diligence and reporting expectations are unlikely to significantly reduce. 27. In this context, the most pragmatic response may be to leverage our downstream delivery chain. This means continuing to use larger and more experienced entities to channel our funds, but with strong and explicit guidance and mechanisms to enable funds to be passed on to local partners for project delivery on the ground. With large programmes such as TEA involving more than 750 downstream energy access innovators, it is essential that our Tier 1 and 2 partners play an important role in managing requirements and risks and enabling local participation and leadership. Many Tier 1 and 2 partners have fully locally staffed local offices, even if they also have northern headquarters. In many cases, it is the companies themselves—such as the mini-grid developers, or the household solar providers—who need to be leading the engagement with communities and customer groups directly.