Written evidence from RT HON BARONESS ANELAY OF ST. JOHNS DBE

Prime Minister’s Special Representative for Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict and Minister of State (HUM0026)

Thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence to your inquiry on the FCO’s human rights work.  In light of the Committee’s interest in the programme management of the FCO’s Magna Carta Fund (MCF) for Human Rights and Democracy, I wanted to offer further details in writing of the systems we have in place.

The National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review along with the FCO’s Single Departmental Plan set the strategic direction and framework for the Fund, which will be doubled to £10.6 million for the 2016/17 financial year.  The MCF strategy sets specific objectives using this framework.  Performance will be measured by quantitative (e.g. treaty ratifications or implementation) and qualitative indicators (e.g. project evaluations and reporting), as part of the requirements for Monitoring and Evaluation built into individual project delivery and overall programme management.

On governance, I believe that our current processes effectively combine rigour, proportionality and input from civil society, which was another aspect of interest to the Committee.  Project proposals from NGOs and other potential implementers reach London only after careful vetting by programme boards at post (or by the relevant policy team at FCO, in the case of regional projects). All worked-up bids to the Fund are signed off at an appropriately senior level, usually Head of Post or Deputy.  I oversee the final selection of projects to ensure that they are well-designed, and that our effort is appropriately balanced across Human Rights Priority Countries and other places and issues where we can make a real difference.

All projects set outputs and outcomes underpinned by measurable indicators.  Project implementers are required by contract to provide quarterly monitoring reports (narrative and financial) throughout the project, and project completion reports to evaluate outcomes.  These are scrutinised by project managers/boards at post and centrally in London by the programme management team. 

Quarterly monitoring reports are analysed to ensure projects are on track to deliver outcomes and to inform quarterly reports to the Senior Responsible Owner (FCO Director) and to me. I enclose examples of the templates we use.

In addition to this, as we set out in our written evidence, the programme management team in London carries out in-depth evaluations by visiting and reporting on 10% of projects, by value, each year.  Evaluations review whether the desired outcomes and impact have been achieved, test the performance of the implementer, check the project management by the FCO and collate lessons learned.  They use the OECD DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance; focusing on the project’s relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.  These evaluations are published at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/official-development-assistance-oda--2#project-evaluation-documents.

As we discussed at the evidence session, 97% of this fund is intended to benefit people in countries that are on the DAC list of ODA recipients. That leaves approximately £300,000 for projects in the four MCF priority countries that are non-ODA: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel (excluding, in this context, the Occupied Palestinian Territories) and Russia. Additionally, the MCF will support a number of regional projects. Such projects incorporate a majority of ODA countries, but central/eastern European projects will often include Russia, and Middle Eastern projects will often include one or more of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Our objectives in these countries may also benefit from the 10% of the Fund we are disbursing through our multilateral posts. These countries have access to other funding streams, e.g. the Arab Partnership Fund and the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (which, as I explained, has an extensive and systematic focus on human rights) as well as bilateral programme funds.

We set out in Annex B of our memorandum the details of our MCF bidding process, and confirmed at the evidence session that the MCF is subject to guidelines set centrally regarding the funding of unregistered NGOs. However, we have flexibility to support such groups through other forms of engagement by our Posts, which can draw on separate programme funds where circumstances permit.

I recognise the FAC’s desire to assess the impact of the FCO’s human rights work as rigorously as possible. We will provide further information to help in this regard in the next edition of the FCO’s Annual Human Rights and Democracy Report, which we plan to publish in April.

March 2016

Quarterly Monitoring Report

(For Projects over £80,000 and over three months in duration)

Please now pass this to the Project Officer in the Post to complete the final section.

Project Completion Report

(For Projects over £80,000)

To be completed by the Implementer within three months of the end of the Project.  All sections should be completed, and the form returned to the Project Officer in the Post.

The final payment cannot be made until the Project Completion Report has been submitted to and agreed by the Post

(* to be completed by the Post)

Please now pass this to the Project Officer in the Post

As appropriate, please now pass the final invoice from the implementer to the relevant Corporate Services Centre for payment.  Please also send a copy of this form to the Programme Team in London within one month