Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 35
35
Rejected
Previous ODA reductions detrimentally impacted FCDO's vital Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning budget.
Conclusion
As a global leader in promoting VfM across development spending, it is vital that the FCDO protects its MEL budget. MEL should not be optional; it is a core function that underpins effective, accountable and adaptive programming. Without appropriate and complete MEL in place, the VfM of FCDO programmes cannot be adequately assessed. It is highly concerning that previous ODA reductions resulted in MEL being cut from programme budgets. (Conclusion, Paragraph 108) 49
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees with the implied recommendation to protect MEL budgets or ringfence MEL spend. They state that ringfencing is inappropriate as FCDO needs flexibility to prioritise resources, though they remain committed to proportionate and strategic MEL and will make monitoring mandatory.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
Disagree. The Government recognises the Committee’s concerns and remains committed to delivering proportionate, strategic MEL that strengthens accountability, adaptability, and VfM. However, ringfencing MEL budgets is not appropriate in the current fiscal landscape. The FCDO must have the flexibility to prioritise and allocate resources in the most efficient way to deliver the greatest impact; in some cases this will involve trade-offs between delivery and MEL spending. Ringfencing limits the ability to navigate these trade-offs to maximise impact. Monitoring will continue to be mandatory, and MEL approaches will be made fit for purpose by adapting systems, targeting evidence gaps, and preparing a new evaluation strategy for 2026 to support a more agile, impactful evaluation function.