Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 44
44
Accepted
Avoid prejudicing humanitarian aid proposals with higher security costs; question lower cost proposals.
Conclusion
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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 86)
Government Response Summary
The government partially agrees, stating FCDO is committed to aid worker safety and assesses high and low security costs using a Value for Money lens focused on maximising impact. They clarify that their existing Humanitarian Allocation Model already accounts for access and local security considerations.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
Partially Agree. 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. 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. 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. 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.