Recommendation 9

HM Government Not Addressed

117. We take our responsibilities as a humanitarian donor seriously and we recognise the importance of evolving our own risk management approaches to keep pace with evolving threats. 118. We plan to review existing programme guidelines and consider stand- alone guidance on the specific issue of mitigating risks to aid workers. This may include recommendations for down-stream implementing partners to attend regular meetings with primary partners and FCDO programme teams to ensure information is conveyed first-hand and to ensure that specific issues can be addressed in an effective and timely manner. We welcome continued dialogue with partners on this important issue and will ensure their views and advice contribute to this process. The FCDO seeks to follow the principled approach to risk-sharing outlined in the IASC 2023 Risk Sharing Framework. 119. The UK will also continue its efforts to support global Humanitarian Notification Systems (HNS), which are a critical tool to support deconfliction and help protect aid workers, when parties to conflict fully engage. The UK provides core funding to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) whose mandate includes the management of the HNS. At the UN Security Council in November 2024, the UK also called upon all member states to take all feasible steps to ensure effective and trusted deconfliction mechanisms are in place and utilised, in line with the obligations of parties to a conflict to protect humanitarian personnel. We reiterated this call at the Council in April 2025. (Conclusion 24, paragraph 86) We recognise the impact that reducing Official Development Assistance from 0.5%-0.3% of gross national income will have on availability of funding for humanitarian relief. However, any defunding of costs associated with the security of aid workers would be a false economy. Proposals with higher security costs should not be prejudiced against. Rather, proposals with lower costs should prompt more questions. (Recommendation 21, paragraph 87) We recommend security risk management costs are decoupled from other programme costs. There should be a designated security risk management fund that organisations delivering UK Official Development Assistance can apply to in order to support their broader security requirements. These grants should be flexible to allow for the appropriate measures to be funded in any given situation. The application process should be accessible to local organisations delivering UK ODA, and they should be encouraged to apply directly with support being provided through UK Embassies wherever possible. International NGOs and consultants applying for work with local organisations must be able to demonstrate both the relevance of their grant to their local partners and the value for money of their being an intermediary. Government Response: Partially Agree 120. The FCDO is committed to the safety and security of aid workers. We make clear to all our partners that we expect them to make adequate budgetary provision to support aid worker safety and security. 121. High and low costs, including costs for security, will be assessed by the FCDO using a value for money (VfM) lens. Central to FCDO’s approach to VfM is not cost minimisation, but a focus and emphasis on maximising the impact of our investments per £ of ODA spent. This comprehensive framework ensures that UK-funded costs are assessed by the degree to which they support and achieve programme outputs, outcomes and impact. 122. To aid this approach, the FCDO’s bilateral humanitarian portfolio is informed by the Humanitarian Allocation Model which, in addition to accounting for the scale and severity of humanitarian crises, accounts for access and local security considerations which may affect and constrain the delivery of humanitarian aid. 123. As we consider budget allocations, humanitarian access and aid worker safety remain priorities. However, drawing upon lessons learned from FCDO experience with other standalone funds, our view is that the establishment of a new fund would require large scale programme management and administrative support which would reduce funding available to support aid worker safety. (Recommendation 22, paragraph 88) Where programme-specific security risk management costs are still built into programme budgets, these should be a distinct budget line rather than being part of administration costs. Government Response: Agree 124. We agree. We will explore the possibility of including a dedicated budget line for programme-specific security risk management costs into FCDO’s standard templates for ODA-funded humanitarian programmes, as well as issuing guidance to staff reviewing humanitarian budgets to ensure security funding requirements are appropriately addressed. Challenges faced by local NGOs (Conclusion 25, paragraph 93) Approaches to negotiating contracts and funding arrangements, where local organisations will be delivering humani