Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 45
45
Rejected
Establish a dedicated, flexible fund for security risk management, separate from programme costs.
Recommendation
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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 87)
Government Response Summary
The government partially agrees on the importance of aid worker safety but explicitly rejects the recommendation for a new designated security risk management fund, arguing it would reduce overall funding due to significant administrative and management costs.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
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.