|
Written evidence submitted by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Minister of State
for the Cabinet Office
Thank you for your letter of 26 May and for the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. The Committee’s continued interest in the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) and our plans to replace it with the new Integrated Security Fund (ISF) is most welcome.
During the hearing on Monday 22 May, I promised to write to the Committee to provide supplementary information on several topics raised by members. These matters are addressed thematically below and I hope this additional information proves beneficial in informing your ongoing work.
Overall Budget
You wanted to know:
The CSSF has been allocated £883.344m for the Financial Year (FY) 2023/24, in addition to £15m of non-ODA funding for the new Economic Deterrence Initiative, taking the Fund’s total allocation to £898.34m. Overall, £360.66m (40.1%) is ODA funding and £537.68m (59.9%) is non-ODA funding.
No CSSF activity was taken into the regular financial baseline of any non-FCDO departments in FY 22/23.
Before CSSF funds are disbursed to implementing partners, it is standard practice to undertake a Due Diligence Assessment, which looks at the systems and procedures prospective partners have in place to ensure they can appropriately manage the funding. Our local programme teams then actively work to monitor the spend as it is being used, with regular checks to assess the actual progress of a project against the forecast timeline and costs agreed at the start of the programming cycle (outlined in an Activity Based Budget (ABB)). All funds are accounted for and tracked via detailed financial records which are submitted to the programme teams by implementing partners on a monthly basis. Any potential deviation from the agreed ABB needs to be agreed in advance and recorded by the programme team. If, for any reason, implementers do not follow this procedure, this would trigger further scrutiny by the programme team to decide on further action needed.
Like any other source of public spending, CSSF funding is also subject to auditing from within HMG, by individual government departments and the National Audit Office. Programme risk registers also note any possible fiduciary risks, where implementers do not make the best use of funding, as well as how teams will mitigate against those.
Cuts to CSSF ODA Programmes
In 2020, the Government decided to reduce UK ODA from 0.7% to 0.5% of Gross National Income (GNI) as a temporary measure in response to the impact of the pandemic on the country’s public finances and economy. As a result, the then Foreign Secretary agreed that only those programmes which required an integrated, cross government funding platform should continue to be funded via the CSSF.
The Joint Funds Unit modelled proposed portfolio allocations using a balanced scorecard methodology, which considered:
● strategic alignment with Government priorities;
● national security
● CSSF principles including integrated delivery (specifically, programmes need to blend ODA and non-ODA and/or requiring multiple departments/partners to work together); and
● evidence of impact.
This modelling informed the recommendation to Ministers on portfolio allocations, which was agreed as part of the National Security Council (NSC) Write Round process.
The ODA reduction had the deepest impact on the largest ODA spending portfolios in the CSSF. Comparing the allocations for the Fund's discretionary portfolios for FY 21/22 with those for FY20/21 the three portfolios that experienced the largest monetary cuts in ODA budgets were:
● Middle East and North Africa
● South Asia and Afghanistan
● Western Balkans
As part of the necessary ODA budget reductions, some CSSF programmes were closed in some form, though where possible, programmes were subsumed by other programmes.
Programmes which were closed included programmes focussed on:
● Security and justice reform programming in Nigeria and East Africa,
● Serious Organised Crime (SOC) work in the Caribbean,
● Governance work in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the Western Balkans,
● Regional programmes in Middle East and North Africa,
● Security and democracy programming in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
● Multilateral reform and support
However, in some instances the CSSF was able to mitigate the impact of reductions to ODA budgets with alternative programming funded through additional non-ODA spending. Examples include the Middle East and North Africa portfolio, where the adverse impacts on both the Jordan Security and Stability programme and the Lebanon Security programme were reduced. Likewise, non-ODA spending was increased to the Western Balkans SOC programme.
Like other areas of ODA spending, the CSSF has had to adapt to the challenging fiscal situation following the global Covid pandemic. Despite a pause in ODA spending last year, the Government took the decisive act to continue CSSF spend in areas where failure to proceed promptly would result in immediate worsening of national security concerns.
The Fund has retained its ability to flex and adapt, despite the challenging circumstances. It continues to prioritise spending on those geographies and thematic issues linked to conflict, stability and security overseas, aligning closely with priorities identified in the Integrated Review, including cyber, state and trans-national threats.
Approach, Governance and Oversight
The CSSF is aligned with the Integrated Review, which sets out security, defence, development and foreign policy priorities for the whole of HMG (including FCDO), and works through departments to deliver against Integrated Review Refresh 2023 objectives.
CSSF portfolios are also integrated within and aligned with departments, including FCDO, to minimise any duplication of activity. Alignment is achieved through a range of approaches including monitoring, evaluation and learning.
All CSSF programming works within a set of ‘risk’ parameters. The definition of ‘high risk’ can vary from programme to programme, but in many instances, for example, involves working in insecure, post conflict environments. With collective NSC oversight and a higher risk appetite, the Fund is able to take higher operational risks than any of the CSSF spending departments alone, given their lower risk appetites.
The CSSF encourages programmes to test new, innovative approaches in response to threats and opportunities, balanced by prudent risk management. While not all interventions may succeed, this high-risk appetite provides HMG with a vehicle to learn lessons and adapt flexibly. However, the CSSF does not take risks with the security of its staff, and the threshold for fiduciary and safeguarding risks is low. In Somalia, CSSF is unique among donors in its direct work with the Somali military. This has enabled it to be first into areas newly recovered from al-Shabaab, supporting the immediate delivery of community needs and the re-establishment of conflict resolution mechanisms. This has given other donors the confidence to follow with longer-term and complimentary programming in areas previously presumed to be inaccessible.
Please see Annex A.
Sub-Saharan Africa
At the end of FY 20/21 and the start of FY 21/22, the Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Nigeria Women Peace and Security programmes were closed. This was in response to ODA constraints, with elements being transitioned to FCDO bilateral ODA funding and older programmes concluding and new programmes coming online.
In FY 22/23 the North East Nigeria programme was subsumed into the Nigeria programme and the West Africa Response programme was subsumed into the Upstream Threats programme. For the past four years the percentage of funding for the Africa CSSF Portfolio against the total CSSF discretionary allocation has remained constant at 12% and in FY 22/23 saw an increase to 14%. Critical programmes in Somalia, Kenya and Nigeria delivering on key National Security objectives remain parts of the Fund’s work.
In line with how all CSSF programmes are evaluated, the ‘Sudan Conflict Resilience and Stabilisation’ programme (2017-2020) was consistently subject to an Annual Review, including a Programme Completion Review in 2020. Elements of the programme were also subject to an independent evaluation of technical assistance to support peace processes in both Sudan and South Sudan in 2019, which informed future programming. The ‘Sudan Transition’ programme (2020-21) also had a Programme Completion Review in 2021, noting this programme only had four months of delivery.
Evidence from the reviews was used to feed into the process set out in response to question (5). The assessment suggested some programme activities should be prioritised for FCDO resourcing and could be integrated into an existing FCDO Governance programme.
The Programme Completion Review (PCR) of the Sudan Conflict Resilience and Stabilisation programme (2020) found that the programme had contributed to conflict mitigation and stabilisation in Sudan through the strengthening of Sudan’s conflict management architecture at the national and sub-national level in two key conflict areas (Darfur and the Two Areas) but did not meet all its set outcomes. The PCR of the Sudan Transition programme found that the programme contributed to HMG’s efforts to support peacebuilding and create a more conducive context for future stability, within the limited timeframe it was operating. Summaries of these reviews are published online on GOV.UK.
The CSSF played a role in delivery of programming supporting HMG’s Strategy for Sudan, overseen by FCDO. This contributed to HMG efforts to support peacebuilding in Sudan and a peaceful transition following the removal of President Bashir.
The FCDO assesses that since 15 April 2023, over 390,000 people (accurate as of 31 May) have migrated to neighbouring countries, primarily Egypt, Chad, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Central African Republic. The UNHCR estimates that this number is likely to increase to over 1 million people in the next 6 months.
The CSSF Africa and Middle East & Northern Africa portfolios are actively monitoring areas where interventions add the most value, for example on dialogue processes and sub-regional impacts, and are keeping allocations under review. The UK Government has called for an urgent discussion within the UN Security Council on the issue of refugee flows in the region, alongside announcing £5m of urgent aid to meet the needs of those forced to flee the conflict.
Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
The Algeria CSSF Programme and Morocco CSSF Programme were closed at the end of FY 21/22. However, the Counter-Terrorism portfolio continues to deliver activity through its global thematic programme in both countries.
Funding for the Tunisia CSSF Programme reduced from £4m in FY 21/22 to £2m in FY 22/23. The funding allocation will remain unchanged in FY 23/24.
The Egypt CSSF Programme has not been reduced. It retained its FY 21/22 allocation of £4m in FY 22/23. This is due to remain unchanged for FY 23/24.
These decisions were taken in line with the Shared Security and Enduring Resilience pillars of the MENA Strategy, a sub-strategy of the Integrated Review and the CSSF Strategic Review which mandated a tighter focus for spending on conflict and instability and insecurity, where there was a threat to the UK, and where CSSF can add greatest value. Decisions were based on analysis, evidence-based scenario planning and modelling across the portfolio.
Analysis demonstrated that the Algeria and Morocco programmes did not provide a strong enough strategic fit in comparison to other priority countries within a tightened resource framework. Accordingly, these programmes were closed. The Tunisia Programme was given a reduced allocation with programme activities focussing on three areas:
● Inclusive economic reform;
● Open and inclusive society;
● Improved security.
The UK Government is in close touch with the Egyptian authorities, international partners and the UN about humanitarian and other needs in Egypt. On the basis of these discussions, we have no current plans to reallocate existing CSSF resources or change activities, but will keep this under review.
The MENA CSSF Portfolio team continually assesses relevant changes to the local context in order to ensure that programmes address HMG priorities in the most effective manner possible. The Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) and Israel CSSF Programme is focused on the long-standing priority of the UK Government to secure a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two State Solution. Programming has responded to the deteriorating context by focussing more on reducing the triggers, and mitigating the impacts of instability and conflict, as well as promoting adherence to international law in the absence of peace. We closely monitor the shifting context and trends including through political reporting, an occupation tracker and programme risk register to understand where CSSF programming can have the most impact in the challenging context in which it is operating.
MENA remains one of the largest portfolios in the CSSF, despite budgetary pressures on ODA funding. The agile nature of the CSSF has allowed us to refocus programmes and try to minimise the impact of a reduction in funding to the Portfolio. In many cases, this has involved targeting specific areas to work in, alongside allies, or amplifying the UK’s role through donor coordination despite smaller programme budgets. The programme team has continued to ensure that it prioritises its work in a way which aligns with HMG’s key priorities and the overall objectives of the CSSF. Assessments of FY 22/23 programmes so far indicate that the Portfolio is on track to deliver revised programme output and outcome goals.
The Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) CSSF Programme continued as the renamed OPT and Israel CSSF Programme, as it transitioned from FY 21/22 to FY 22/23. There has been no reduction in funding. FY 21/22 allocation was £6.5m with an in-year uplift of £3.3m, FY 22/23 allocation was £9m with an in-year uplift of £300k, and this programme will continue in FY 23/24.
Political:
● Southern Dialogue
● Women, Peace and Security support to Political Parties
● Support to the Office for the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Yemen (OSESGY)
● Rethinking the peace process
Social cohesion and stability:
● Yemen Support Fund
● Youth at Risk
● Social Cohesion Project
● CVE/CT Tracker and analysis
Border and maritime security:
● Yemen Coast Guards
● Maritime Security Advisor
● UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism for Yemen (VIM)
● Houthi Engagement Project
The Yemen CSSF Programme supports peacebuilding directly via support to the formal UN-led process, and indirectly by facilitating inclusive peacebuilding activity, including by improving direct communication between local and national political, governance and civil society actors. Both the UN and local partners have assessed that the support the UK provides to peacebuilding in Yemen is valuable, strengthening efforts to maintain the ceasefire, protecting civilians from the impact of war, and supporting the drive to establish a sustainable and inclusive peace settlement, including as part of the 2022 ceasefire negotiating team.
The most recent Annual Review of the programme (2022) found that in a challenging and unpredictable context, the Yemen programme in FY 21/22 produced a number of tangible results. The programme remained responsive to changes in the external context and adapted to take advantage of new opportunities, such as progress towards a ceasefire mechanism in spring 2021.
In FY 22/23, approximately 65% of the Yemen Programme’s spend was on peacebuilding. This is expected to remain largely unchanged for FY 23/24. In addition to mainstreaming a focus on gender across the Programme, in FY 22/23 the Programme also began a dedicated Women, Peace and Security project to explore barriers to women’s participation in the peace process. Continuing into FY 23/24, the project seeks to strengthen those mechanisms which already exist to support women’s political engagement (and are thus more context specific and sustainable) and expand women’s roles in the peace process.
Central Asia
CSSF spend in FY 21/22 on the Central Asia Programme was £2.3m. In FY 22/23, the programme was uplifted to £3.1m, with spend subject to final end of year processes. In FY 21/22, 2.7% of the Eastern Europe and Central Asia Portfolio was spent in Central Asia. This increased to 2.8% in FY 22/23, subject to final end of year processes.
Asia-Pacific
The CSSF Philippines programme currently covers activities in Bangsamoro and is due to continue until March 2025. Plans beyond that point will need to be assessed in the light of evidence of the programme’s effect and relevant local context and will be subject to the Integrated Security Fund Ministerial process to prioritise the Fund’s resources.
The Philippines CSSF programme team have shared learning from their programming across the CSSF network. In addition to the standard process of completing and disseminating the findings of annual reviews, the team have also contributed to a regional CSSF conference that was delivered in Bangkok in March 2023, which brought together colleagues from across the Indo-Pacific to share learning in line with the objectives of the Integrated Review Refresh.
Looking forward, the team is organising a climate-security research presentation in the region to share lessons learned and research findings. The Joint Funds Unit works with the Philippines programme team to ensure key lessons can be applied to other CSSF programmes, and that this is recorded and tracked over time. This is part of a wider established process that tracks and shares lessons learnt each quarter from across the Fund’s programme teams.
Integrated Security Fund
The Fund will be composed of the Conflict Stability and Security Fund, the National Cyber Programme and the newly established Economic Deterrence Initiative.
The ISF will provide an expanded Fund and an even greater opportunity to support UK national security, building on the success of the CSSF. It will learn lessons from its delivery in order to address key national security priorities as articulated in the IR Refresh. As the new Fund stands up, work is continuing as directed by Ministers, across the full breadth of issues including supporting our efforts in Ukraine, supporting the international rules-based system in the Indo-Pacific, and tackling serious and organised crime and terrorism. Work to establish the ISF is continuing alongside this.
We are confident that the transition will be made without unnecessary transaction costs. As the Fund transitions, there will not be any duplication in the bidding process. Ministers will oversee a single allocation process for the next financial year, which will consider and agree portfolio allocations towards the end of the year.
For the National Cyber Programme, work has already begun to align and integrate delivery across the totality of cyber delivery in order to prevent any disruption or duplication. We have assessed the impact of the ISF on the new CSSF Procurement Framework and are confident that it will remain an effective delivery route for ISF-funded programmes.
We welcome the Committee’s ongoing support and engagement on the role of the CSSF as it transitions to become the ISF.
I hope the information provided is useful for the Committee’s work. I am conscious the letter is lengthy, reflecting the complexity of the work of the Fund. I look forward to further opportunities to provide practical, positive examples of what our programmes are achieving. We touched on some of these at the hearing and I look forward to updating you on our work in the future.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG
19 June 2020
Annex A - Current governance and oversight arrangements for the CSSF
The CSSF Cross-Government Governance Structure:
National Security Council (NSC) - The Prime Minister and the members of the NSC set the strategic direction of all UK work on security, defence, development and diplomacy through the Integrated Review and Integrated Review Refresh, which informs CSSF allocations. The NSC sets the CSSF Portfolio Allocations annually, and the Fund also has the capacity to flex programming in response to Ministerial decisions throughout the year to address emerging challenges.
Cabinet Office Minister responsible for CSSF delivery overall on behalf of the NSC. This includes leading consultation with NSC members, via write round process, on the annual portfolio level allocations process to ensure alignment with NSC direction, ad hoc consultation on Fund management and meeting the CSSF’s transparency commitments. The Minister is accountable to Parliament.
CSSF SRO – Deputy National Security Adviser responsible for administering the Fund on behalf of the Minister and National Security Council. Supported by a Director and the Joint Funds Unit (JFU).
CSSF Portfolio Boards - senior official boards chaired by Portfolio SRO - Director level in the relevant policy lead department. For example, all geographic portfolios are led by FCDO Directors. The boards (with representatives from the Cabinet Office JFU) monitor progress on delivering ministerial steers on strategic objectives, implement NSC agreed annual portfolio allocations and oversee risk management.
CSSF Country/Regional/Strategy Boards - chaired by the Head of Mission or senior policy lead in the UK. Responsible for the design and delivery of programmes.
Departmental Programme Rules - CSSF-funded activity should comply with individual departmental rules and responsibility, including Accounting Officer accountability as necessary.