Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 50
50
Accepted
FCDO's contract approach obstructs cost-effective pooling of security risk management services.
Conclusion
The relief and development sector continues to strive for value for money– maximising the essential aid to those who need it whilst keeping its staff safe. We have witnessed the strong collegiate working between security risk management professionals across the sector. However, the FCDO’s current approach to contracts does not go as far as it could to encourage the pooling of services that would allow more cost-effective security risk management. (Conclusion, Paragraph 98)
Government Response Summary
The government partially agrees that collaborative approaches enhance cost efficiency, but states that a new security risk management fund is not required. They fund INSO as a pooled resource, are exploring funding for GISF, and support consortia for shared resources and impact.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
Partially Agree. We agree that collaborative approaches to risk management and shared security services can enhance cost efficiency and effectiveness. In our view, support for important common services and collaborative approaches does not require the establishment of a new security risk management fund. We fund the International NGO Safety Organisation (INSO) as a pooled resource in multiple countries to provide risk analysis and training for international and local partners. We are also exploring funding support for the Global Interagency Security Forum (GISF) who play a key role in enabling shared security services for INGOs. The FCDO also has a long history of supporting consortia, whereby partners work in partnership to combine reach, expertise, and share resources to enhance impact. As mentioned previously, the HAVEN consortium in Ukraine is a good example of a partnership that enhances safety and security outcomes. Other UK-funded consortia have relayed that partners shared security assessments, and security analysis, to enhance safe humanitarian access. Consortium models can also enable funding to be quickly moved between partners, if required, to respond to unanticipated needs or contextual shifts.