Further memorandum submitted by the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office
THE GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
from the Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
6 June 2003
As you know, the FCO was given funding in the
last spending review to set up a Global Opportunities Fund. You
will, I am sure, have seen the Written Statement I made to the
House on 8 May formally launching the Fund. For ease of reference,
I enclose a copy of that Statement (Annex A), and copies of a
Guidance Telegram to Posts explaining the Fund, the amount of
money available under it and how that money will be allocated,
and copies of the following telegrams setting out frequently asked
questions and key contact points (Annex B). I also enclose a copy
of the Global Opportunities Fund Strategy which we have agreed
with the Treasury and No 10 (Annex C).
I would be happy to arrange for one of my officials
to brief the Clerk, if the Committee would find that helpful.
If you wish, I would also be willing to let the Committee have
a report after the first year's operation of the GOF.
Rt Hon Jack Straw, MP
Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
June 2003
Annex A
Foreign and Commonwealth Office Written
Ministerial Statement, 8 May 2003
GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES
FUND
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs (Mr Jack Straw): I am today launching the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office's Global Opportunities Fund (GOF) to support
the Government's key foreign policy objectives. The Fund was established
in the last spending review with an allocation of £120 million
for the next three years.
The GOF will be used to support existing programmes
on human rights and legal reform, democracy and good governance,
the environment and international security. The GOF will also
support our growing science and technology work overseas.
In this first financial year, we will be launching
five new GOF programmes. These reflect the FCO's Public Service
Agreements for 2003-06 as well as the emerging conclusions of
the FCO's longer-term strategic review. The new programmes are:
— Governance in EU accession and candidate
countries and near neighbours.
— Engagement with the Islamic world.
— Climate change and energy.
— Strengthening our relations with
emerging markets.
The Fund will bring together the resources of
the Human Rights Project Fund, the Environment Fund, the Counter-Terrorism
Assistance Fund and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to
ensure that long-term investment is better co-ordinated and focussed.
Investing in positive change of this kind has
never been more important. By tackling terrorism and threats to
our security, promoting good governance and human rights, and
addressing injustice, poverty and conflict we promote the interests
of the citizens of Britain and elsewhere. In doing so, we can
only contribute to a safer, fairer and more prosperous world.
Annex B
GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES
FUND: FREQUENTLY
ASKED QUESTIONS
Q1. Will we able to bid for other programmes,
or are these five "it" for the next three years?
Al. That's it for year one. But Directorates
wishing to bid for new programmes will have a chance to do so
in the run-up to year two. There will be a lot more funding available
in years two and three. We need to start thinking now about to
use it.
Q2. Does that mean we'll be launching lots
of new programmes in year two, and lots more in year three?
A2. No. It may just mean more spending on
the existing five programmes. We will be open to bids for new
programmes, but we intend to remain selective.
Q3. How will you define the boundaries between
the five new programmes and decide who participates on the programme
management teams?
A3. The five programme managers will need
to think about this as they work up their bids, consulting with
each other and with strand leaders. The GOF Steering Group will
use its meeting on 15 April to review the proposed focus of each
programme, decide allocations between them, and resolve any ambiguities.
Q4. Once you've allocated funds to these programmes,
can the programme manager just do whatever he/she wants?
A4. No. He/she must involve the rest of
the programme management team. If other members think the programme
is going astray, they can convey their concerns to the Global
Issues Director. The Steering Group will review programmes once
a quarter and may claw back funds from those that are under-performing
or under-spending.
Q5. Once programme allocations are agreed,
how will Posts bid for projects within these programmes?
A5. Programme management teams will need
to sort out the details, within some general parameters. There
will be a (short) standard form which Posts will use to submit
project bids to the relevant programme manager. If the programme
manager thinks the project is better suited to one of the other
GOF programmes, he/she can forward it to the appropriate person.
Q6. Can outside organisations bid directly
to the programme manager for funding, or must they always channel
their proposals through Posts?
A6. We do not expect all bids to come from
Posts. Programme managers might well fund projects submitted directly
by outside organisations (eg NGOs), particularly those in the
UK. For organisations outside the UK, we would normally expect
bids to be submitted via the local Post and would always want
the Post to be consulted.
Q7. What sort of projects are allowed?
A7. Up to each programme management team
to decide. We expect a wide range (eg NGO projects, technical
assistance to foreign governments, funding for UN activity). Programme
management teams will need to work out ways of commissioning project
proposals (eg by publishing their programme strategies on the
Internet). Procedures will vary from case to case (eg less transparent
for counter-terrorism).
Q8. Who monitors progress and reports to
the GOF Steering Group?
A8. The programme manager produces quarterly
narrative and financial reports, based on individual project updates
by relevant Posts. Programme managers are supported by a GOF Central
Management Unit (soon to be established in Global Issues Directorate),
which serves as Secretariat to the Steering Group.
Q9. Who sits on the GOF Steering Group?
A9. Four Directors (Global Issues, International
Security, Resources, Strategy and Innovation), plus the five strand
leaders and representatives from DfID and British Council (the
latter to be excluded where there is a conflict of interest).
The Global Issues Director chairs the Group.
Q10. What criteria will the Steering Group
apply in reviewing programme bids?
A10. See the GOF Strategy for details. In
short: clear link to PSA targets; specific, measurable outcomes;
real potential to set change in motion; evidence of how GOF activity
adds to existing efforts; serious commitment by the Directorate/Posts
involved to run the programme effectively.
Q11. Do we have enough expertise to handle
programmes on this scale?
A11. We recognise the demands, and have
been discussing them with our attaches and advisers, as well as
with DfID. The GOF Central Management Unit will provide guidance
to programme managers on issues such as financial control, contracting
and procurement. It will also co-ordinate training. A training
needs analysis is being undertaken as the basis for a new course
on programme and project management (likely to be launched in
May).
Q12. How can we avoid the usual end-of-year
scramble to spend money?
A12. GOF programmes can be multi-year and
we are exploring scope for rolling over unspent funds from one
year to the next. In practice, we do not expect much End-of-Year
flexibility and will need to ensure spending proceeds without
delay.
Q13. Why aggregate some budgets with GOF,
while keeping others separate (eg Drugs and Crime Fund, Conflict
Prevention Pools)?
A13. We have gone for aggregation wherever
possible, to maximise the strategic impact of GOF and avoid duplication.
DCF/CPP are managed through special arrangements involving DfID,
MOD and other Departments.
Q14. This is going to place an extra burden
on already over-stretched staff. Can't we exchange GOF for a bigger
administrative budget?
A14. No. This has never been an option.
But the GOF-funded slots will reinforce Directorates/Posts facing
extra demands. Directorates/Posts that do not see a need for GOF
are under no pressure to bid. In some countries we may be able
to achieve more by helping DfID spend its money well rather than
running our own programmes.
Q15. Why are our Command Programme Budgets
(CPB) being reduced? Has the money been taken to fund the GOF?
A15. No. A review of FCO programme budgets
concluded that we needed more rigorous prioritisation of CPBs
and greater flexibility to respond to unforeseen events. The measures
taken in response, including creation of an FCO reserve, have
meant reducing CPBs by 30%. The rest has been allocated to your
Directorate as normal. Had we not been able to use GOF to contribute
to the reserve fund, the pressure on CPBs would have been even
greater.
Q16. It all sounds terribly complicated.
Can't you make it simpler—just give the money to geographical
Directorates and let them get on with it?
A16. We believe the new approach will put
Directorates in the driving seat. Several of the programme managers
will be members of geographical Directorates. But we also want
functional Departments like HRPD to be consulted, through participation
of the strand leaders in the programme management teams, to ensure
that funds are used in a way that supports the GOF Strategy.
Q17. I'm still confused. What should I do?
A17. Contact one of the GOF Managers (see MIFT),
or the Global Issues Director.
GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES
FUND: WHERE
TO GET
MORE INFORMATION
1. The following documents will be posted
on the Intranet by 26 March (go to the Global Issues Department
area, or look in A-Z Topics for "Global Opportunities Fund").
— GOF: Initial Proposals (paper by
Michael Arthur)
— GOF Strategy (Draft dated 14.03.03)
— GOF Management (Draft dated 12.03.03)
— GOF programme bidding form
— Worked example of a GOF programme
bid ("Reuniting Europe")
2. If you do not have access to the Intranet,
you can obtain these documents from any of the people listed below.
3. Programme managers:
— Engagement with the Islamic world:
Rosemary Waugh (MED)
— Strengthening our relationship with
emerging markets: Graham Minter (EcPol)
— Counter-terrorism: Alex Budden (CTPD)
— Climate change and energy: Rob Mason
(EPD)
— Governance in EU applicant countries
and near neighbours: Alex Ellis (EUD)
4. Strand leaders:
— Human rights and legal reform: Barbara
Woodward (HRPD)
— Democracy and good governance (political
and economic): Barbara Woodward (HRPD) and Tristan Price (EcPol)
— Environment and energy: Louise De
Sousa (EPD)
— International security, particularly
counter-terrorism: Martyn Warr (CTPD)
— Miscellaneous, including science
and technology: Richard Jones (STU)
5. Pending creation of the GOF Central Management
Unit, other enquiries should be directed as follows:
— Budgetary issues: Neil Holland (RBD)
and Justine Allan (RMO/GID)
— Training: Bonny St John (PPD) and
Scott Smith (TD)
Annex C
GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES
FUND—STRATEGY
1. THE 2002
SPENDING ROUND
ALLOCATED £120 MILLION
OVER THE
TRIENNIUM
(FY 2003-06) FOR THE
NEW GLOBAL
OPPORTUNITIES FUND
(GOF). ALLOWING FOR
SOME DEDUCTIONS
(EG CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE
FCO RESERVE), THE
AMOUNT AVAILABLE
FOR NEW
PROGRAMME ACTIVITY
OVER THE
THREE
YEARS IS
AROUND £87 MILLION
(£12 MILLION/£29 MILLION/£46
MILLION). THIS
WILL SUBSTANTIALLY
INCREASE THE
FCO'S ABILITY
TO PURSUE
KEY POLICY
OBJECTIVES.
2. TO INCREASE
THE IMPACT
OF GOF AND
AVOID DUPLICATION,
WE WILL
INTEGRATE IT
WITH SOME
EXISTING BUDGETS:
HUMAN RIGHTS
PROJECT FUND,
WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION
FOR DEMOCRACY,
ENVIRONMENT FUND,
COUNTER-TERRORISM
FUND. THESE
WILL BRING
IN ADDITIONAL
FUNDING OF
AROUND £46 MILLION
(£15 MILLION/£15 MILLION/£16
MILLION) AND
MAKE GOF THE
FCO'S MAIN
FUNDING SOURCE
FOR GLOBAL
ISSUES WORK.
(BUT NOT
THE ONLY
SOURCE: A
NUMBER OF
OTHER BUDGETS
WILL CONTINUE
TO BE
RUN ALONG
EXISTING LINES,
NOTABLY THE
CONFLICT PREVENTION
POOLS; DRUGS
AND CRIME
FUND; SCHOLARSHIPS/PUBLIC
DIPLOMACY BUDGETS;
OTHER COMMAND
PROGRAMME BUDGETS,
INCLUDING SPONSORED
VISITS.)
3. THIS
STRATEGY PAPER
SETS OUT
OUR POLICY
PRIORITIES FOR
GOF ACTIVITY, BASED
ON THE
FCO'S PUBLIC
SERVICE AGREEMENTS
(PSAS) FOR
2003-06. THE STRATEGY
HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED WITH
OTHER GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS (INCLUDING
DFID). AS
STIPULATED UNDER
SR 2002, WE WILL
REVIEW AND
CLEAR IT
ANNUALLY WITH
NO 10 AND
THE TREASURY.
4. THE STRATEGY
INCLUDES ONLY
A BRIEF
DISCUSSION OF
HOW GOF WILL
BE ADMINISTERED
IN PRACTICE.
FOR MORE
ON THIS,
SEE THE
COMPANION PAPER
ON GOF MANAGEMENT.
PRINCIPLES—THE
NEED FOR
A GOF STRATEGY
5. We need to ensure a tight link between
GOF programmes and FCO policy priorities. This is essential because:
— We want GOF to be used to maximum
effect. This means focusing on a limited range of key policy areas
where the FCO can make a real difference.
— While £120 million is big money
by FCO standards, it is far less than the budgets of donors like
DfID (Which will soon be spending over £1 billion in Africa
alone). We must avoid duplication and build on existing efforts—including
those the FCO itself is already supporting through the Conflict
Prevention Pools, the Drugs and Crime Fund and other budgets.
— The Treasury will be monitoring GOF
closely and will expect evidence of how we have used it to deliver
our PSAs.
— Running programmes involves time
and effort. It is only worth doing it if helps us achieve our
policy objectives. We don't want hard-pressed staff to be doing
work that isn't a priority, or investing a lot of time working
up project bids that fail to secure funding.
Overall aim
6. The purpose of GOF is to promote action
on global issues in areas of strategic importance to the UK. We
will use it for integrated programmes of assistance closely linked
to our foreign policy priorities. These must add value to the
Government's existing support for poverty reduction, conflict
prevention and combating transnational crime.
Subsidiary objectives
7. To achieve this aim, we will use GOF
to promote:
— Respect for human rights, including
better justice systems.
— Democracy and good governance (political
and economic).
— Sustainable management of environmental
and energy resources.
— Action to combat global security
threats, particularly international terrorism.
— International collaboration on science
and technology.
Approach
8. We will use GOF in a way that:
— Maximises the strategic impact: By
directing funds towards programmes clearly linked to FCO policy
objectives and PSAs, and avoiding duplication with other budgets.
— Minimises the administrative burden:
By avoiding nugatory bidding and giving priority Directorates/Posts
as much flexibility as possible, within the limits of accountability
and quality control, to use GOF to achieve their objectives.
9. The need to link resources to priorities
means it is not possible to just divide GOF up equally between
all Directorates/Posts. Some regions/countries are higher priorities
than others. Nor can we just allocate GOF to a few priority Directorates
and exclude the possibility of good bids from others. We need
some competition to ensure quality. High priority Directorates
must show they have concrete plans for using GOF; lower priority
Directorates should have the chance to submit good bids.
10. We therefore propose:
— Bottom-up bidding within top-down
strategies: We will define in advance the priority themes and
regions for GOF activity under each of the five "strands":
human rights (HR), democracy and good governance (DGG), environment
and energy (EE), international security (IS), science and technology
(S&T). These strand strategies (see Appendix A) should form
the basis for bids from Directorates. Bids covering more than
one strand are welcome.
— Bidding for programmes as well as
projects: Directorates and/or Departments will be encouraged to
work up proposals for programmes consisting of a range of discrete
projects linked to a single objective. Some of the projects may
be clearly defined in advance, others can be worked up once the
programme has been earmarked for funding. Bidding for individual
projects will still be permitted, but the emphasis on programmes
will allow more flexibility and enable Directorates to plan sensibly.
— Reinforcing administrative capacity
to run programmes: Running GOF programmes is time-consuming. Directorates
will receive additional staff to help run GOF programmes. They
can use these as they see fit: in London or in the region, for
UK-based or for LE staff. But these resources will not be equally
distributed: they will flow disproportionately to Directorates
running large GOF programmes.
Priority themes/regions
11. See Appendix A for full details. Several
themes cut across the five strands. It may be helpful, for illustrative
purposes, to pick out from Appendix A some likely areas of GOF
activity. This is not an exhaustive list and the themes are set
out in no particular order of priority. It is intended simply
as a basis for Directorates to start thinking about how they might
use GOF. Each theme is listed together with the GOF strand(s)
to which it relates and the priority countries for such work (some
countries fit into several categories, eg both Islamic and an
energy producer).
— Promoting core human rights freedoms,
rights of minorities and women's and children's rights (mainly
HR, but also IS). Global, but with particular focus on the Islamic
World and Asia.
— Human rights monitoring and awareness
raising (mainly HR, but also aspects of EE and IS).
— Legal/penal reform at national level
to ensure compliance with international human rights obligations
and respect for contracts (HR, DGG, EE, IS). Islamic World, current/future
EU candidates, FSU.
— Developing the machinery of international
justice, eg ICC. (HR). Islamic World, Africa, Balkans.
— Building participatory democracy
and strengthening political oversight. (DGG). Islamic World, current/future
EU candidates, FSU, G20 and selected other emerging markets, Africa.
— Strengthening civil society, including
independent media. (DGG, EE). Islamic World, FSU, East Asia, G20
and selected other emerging markets.
— Economic reform, including reducing
barriers to trade and investment, better competition regulation,
energy sector reform, labour market reform. (DGG). Current/future
EU candidates, FSU, Islamic World, G20 and selected other emerging
markets, energy producers.
— Tackling corruption. (DGG, EE). FSU,
Islamic World, G20 and selected other emerging markets, energy
producers.
— Corporate social responsibility.
(DGG, EE). Energy producers, G20 and selected other emerging markets,
failing states.
— Strengthening administrative capacity,
including capacity to access funds from big donors (eg EC, World
Bank). (DGG, EE). Current/future EU candidates, FSU, Islamic World,
G20 emerging markets, failing states, Overseas Territories.
— Promoting adoption of new technology,
eg clean fuels. (EE, S&T). G20 and selected other emerging
markets, energy producers.
— Improved management of natural resources,
eg forests, water, oil/gas. (DGG, EE). Energy producers, East
Asia, Latin America, Current/future EU candidates, FSU, Overseas
Territories, Africa.
— Operational counter-terrorism training,
eg CT policing skills, aviation security, crisis management training.
(IS). SE Asia, South Asia, Middle East, North Africa.
— UNSCR 1373 Capacity Building CT Assistance,
eg strengthening legislation, combating terrorist financing, improving
regulation of charities. (IS). Focusing on major sources of threat
to the UK (Middle East, North Africa, SE Asia, South Asia) but
with potential for global reach—particularly those countries
not on DCF's priority list and potentially vulnerable to terrorist
activity.
— Law enforcement capacity building
(police, customs, immigration) and improved border management.
(HR, DGG, EE, IS). Asia, Islamic World, current/future EU candidates,
FSU, failing states—if not already covered by CPP and DCF.
Funding criteria
12. It will be for Directorates and Posts
to decide, in light of their objectives and existing programme
activities and through close liaison with functional departments,
which themes to pursue through GOF. They may wish to focus narrowly
on a single strand (eg counter-terrorism), or develop a broader
programme cutting across several strands (eg legal reforms that
help encourage foreign investment in the energy sector and thus
promote economic growth). Where in doubt, they should consult
the "strand leaders" in the relevant functional Departments
(HRPD, CTPD etc)—who will coordinate among themselves to
ensure there is a proper read-across between strands.
13. A GOF Steering Group will meet quarterly
to decide the allocations between strands and which major programmes
should receive support. It will be guided by the recommendations
of the strand leaders, who will also have authority to take decisions
on funding of individual projects and small programmes. See the
GOF Management paper for details.
14. In reviewing bids for funding, the Steering
Group will focus on the programme's importance in contributing
to GOF's objectives. They will be looking for programmes with
a clear link to strand strategies and PSA targets; specific, measurable
outcomes; and real potential to break frontiers and set change
in motion.
15. Other funding criteria will include:
— The Directorate/Post's commitment
to using GOF strategically. Is their bid underpinned by a clear
strategy for using GOF in their region? Have senior, as well as
junior staff made time for GOF in their job descriptions?
— Quality of the programme bid. Does
it provide a clear analysis of the current situation and what
we hope to achieve? Do the project activities make sense? What
would success look like? Is there an exit strategy?
— Capacity of implementing organisation(s).
Will they require micro-management by the FCO? If so, are Directorates/Posts
prepared to make the effort?
— Is the programme linked to a broader
international strategy that already has a head of steam (eg initiatives
agreed by the G8), thereby reducing the burden on the UK and increasing
the chances of success?
— Is GOF the best funding source? Could
the programme be funded from the Conflict Prevention Pools, Drugs
and Crime Fund or other FCO budgets (see Appendix B for list of
current CPP strategies). Does it complement other FCO-funded activity
(including British Council and other public diplomacy?) Does it
offer good value for money?
— Complementarity with other donors.
Is the bid clear on what others (eg DfID, European Commission)
are doing and how FCO support would add value? Is there a risk
of duplication?
Other issues
16. Regional priorities. All Directorates/Posts
will be eligible to bid for programmes, but it is clear that some
regions/countries will be priorities, eg Arab World, current/future
EU candidates, FSU, G20 and selected other emerging markets. Many
of these are middle income countries (where DfID is less active).
Failing states may also be a priority (where not covered by Conflict
Prevention Pools).
17. Matching funds. We may be able to use
GOF to leverage more international spending by OGDs (eg Home Office
on migration, DTI on energy), or more spending on UK priorities
by other donors (eg European Commission). We should do so where
possible, but not if it is unduly time-consuming.
18. Size of programmes. We need to be able
to demonstrate real impact. This, plus the economies of scale
in running larger programmes, suggests we should avoid a proliferation
of micro-programmes. In general, we should not be funding projects
with budgets under £20,000 unless they are clearly linked
to a larger programme. However, we should allow strand leaders
to waive this rule in exceptional circumstances where small projects
could have a big impact.
19. Attitude to risk. DfID is focusing increasingly
on countries that are committed to reform. This may also be a
valid rule for some GOF programmes if we are to show success.
But GOF is about minimising threats as well as capturing opportunities.
We should be prepared to take risks where we have real interests
at stake, eg supporting reformers in authoritarian countries,
tackling terrorist threats in failing states.
20. UK profile. GOF programmes may have
public diplomacy benefits, helping to improve perceptions of the
UK. We should make the most of such opportunities, but should
not put the pursuit of publicity ahead of other objectives. We
want GOF programmes to be recognised for their inherent quality,
not because they carry a UK flag. Sometimes it may be better to
keep a low-profile (eg counter-terrorism training).
Appendix A—1: Human Rights Strategy
21. The human rights strand (£7/10/12
million) will act as a catalyst for change in human rights and
for complementary changes which enhance the UK's security and
prosperity. For example, the breakdown or absence of the rule
of law can threaten UK and international security (Afghanistan,
Iraq, Kashmir) or prosperity (access to resources, influxes of
refugees, security of British investments).
22. The overall aims for 2003-06, in support
of PSA 7, are to:
— Increase the number of functioning
democracies in the world from 95 in 2003 to 105 in 2006;
— Secure the ratification of any of
the six core human rights treaties by 25 additional states by
2006;
— Increase the number of countries
with fully independent and impartial judiciaries from 90 in 2003
to 95 in 2006; and
— Increase the effectiveness of the
machinery of international justice, in particular the ICC, ICTY,
SCSL and the African Court of Human Rights.
23. Depending on the country or region concerned,
work in this stream may include:
— promoting the UN core freedoms (thought,
conscience and religion, association, and expression); rights
of minorities (at the root of many destabilising regional conflicts);
women's and children's rights (including in conflict and post
conflict situations);
— strengthening HR monitoring and awareness
raising initiatives;
— development of justice (training
law enforcement bodies/agencies, the judiciary and lawyers, reform
of constitutional law and primary legislation to ensure compliance
with international human rights obligations and respect for contracts),
and international justice (including international criminal courts).
24. Approach: There are numerous large donors
working on human rights, including the UN, OSCE, EU and DfID,
with significantly larger budgets (to which the UK contributes)
than the GOF. Based on the experience of the HRPF, the GOF is
likely to achieve maximum impact by funding small projects that
either:
— Complement the work of other donors;
— Require rapid reaction; or
— Provide support on issues that are
unpopular with other funders or locally but nonetheless are deemed
a priority.
25. The small project approach will work
best because:
— The UK has comparative advantage
in this area: we have a well developed civil society accustomed
to developing high impact projects; eg Afghanistan.
— The UK has trained staff to handle
small projects (although more training will be needed).
— It is a niche market: few other donors
can meet NGOs' needs for small programme funding although this
is the most effective.
— Few other funders react as quickly
as the FCO.
— It is a flexible area, well suited
to niche opportunities and cooperation with other international
organisations and donors (eg UN, OSCE) (eg the UK could offer
police training which another organisation might complement with
equipment).
— Best practice can be easily replicated
across borders (eg police training).
— It complements other GOF priorities
security and good governance.
— It has a positive effect on the business
climate.
26. Specific objectives/outcomes 2003-06
are (detail to come from geographical directorates):
— To strengthen the court system in
the Arab world, including the possible establishment of an Arab
League Court of Human Rights (Strategy for the Arab World, paragraph
19).
— To improve the status of women in
the Arab World, guaranteeing equality of rights, an action programme
to eliminate female genital mutilation, promoting literacy and
basic education for women (Strategy for the Arab World, paragraph
19).
— Helping China to develop an effective,
efficient, transparent and professional . . . legal system which
protect and promote individuals' rights and the rule of law and
encourage UK investor confidence (UK China Strategy, Administrative
and Legal Reform, Objective 1 and China Strategy paragraph 8).
— Central Asia /rule of law? OSCE?
— [India: Delhi declaration to come]
— African Court of Human and People's
Rights established and becoming functional by end 2006 (PSA 7),
SC SL is a PSA target—link to NEPAD strategic objective?
— Balkans NB: ICTY is PSA target
27. Strategy for 2003-04:
Next FY's indicative allocation for this funding
stream £7 million) will be fully allocated through existing
HRPF procedures under the published criteria. Over the year, we
will be developing our human rights advisers network (FCO and
non-FCO staff, including those with a regional remit in Africa)
to develop a strategic approach to GOF project development and
sharing best practice.
We do not envisage GOF funding capital costs,
welfare projects, humanitarian assistance or duplicating work
already covered by other donors. In particular, we will want to
make sure our work is complimentary with that of DfID in countries
of shared concern (eg we have done this successfully in Burma,
Uganda, India and Nepal). A clear division will need to be drawn
in some areas where there is a risk of overlap between GOF's HR
strand and the GOF DGG strand, eg freedom of expression (HR) and
support for the media (DGG); support for the work of NGOs in promoting
and protecting HRs (HR) and civil society development per se (DGG).
Appendix A—2: Democracy and Good
Governance Strategy
Objective
28. To promote democracy and good governance
(DGG). This is in the UK's interest: democracies tend to be stable,
secure trading partners. Some 43% of the world's population do
not live in a fully democratic country, including all of the Arab
world which is a major source of direct threats to western security.
Sixty-one countries, with 38% of the world's population do not
have a free press, an essential concomitant of democracy. More
than three quarters of the 47 democracies which have come in to
being since 1980 have not made a full transition to democracy.
Sustained economic growth can relieve poverty
and encourage the emergence of countries that can be trade and
investment partners of the UK. But growth relies on good governance.
This is needed for governments to make robust decisions, for which
they are accountable, and that take into account all relevant
competing domestic and international interests.
This GOF strand strengthens FCO activity in
delivering PSA 7 and 8, notably in:
— Increasing the number of functioning
democracies in the world;
— Encouraging steps towards the Millennium
Development Goal of open, rules-based and predictable international
trading and financial systems;
— Increasing implementation of international
standards on investment, corruption, tax and money laundering;
— Improving economic governance in
states where it is failing;
— Helping Turkey make progress on its
Accession Partnership with the EU;
— Enabling former Yugoslav countries
to sign formal agreements with the EU.
Strategy
29. The GOF will focus on middle income
countries in regions of strategic importance to the UK, though
will in some cases be used to complement DfID activity in poorer
countries where we have vital foreign policy interests (eg administrative
reform in China). Regions might include Middle East, Asia and
EU candidates. Priority themes revolve around building capacity
in states to take and implement decisions that lead to durable
growth. These themes are: building participatory democracy, developing
political oversight; stimulating independent media; tackling corruption;
and economic reform, including removal of barriers to trade and
investment, better competition regulation, and labour market reform.
There are complementarities between different
GOP strands. The DGG strand includes activity on support for the
media and the development of civil society per se. Activity on
freedom of expression and support for the work of NGOs in promoting
and protecting human rights falls into the GOF strand on Human
Rights. The Human Rights strand will also include a programme
on ensuring access to efficient and impartial systems of justice,
which underpins democracy and good governance.
Funding and delivery
30. Next FY's indicative allocation for
this funding stream is £6 million. The bulk of this (£4
million) will be used by WFD for democracy building.
Projects in these areas could be delivered by
international financial institutions, international NGOs and OGDs.
The strand would aim to leverage the resources directly available
to the FCO by attracting suitable partners, including amongst
those who might deliver the desired outputs. Possible partners
could include DfID, British Council, Bank of England, the European
Commission, UN (UNDP), OSCE, EU, USAID and the World Bank (via
loans) and other multilateral development banks.
31. Priority activities and areas 2003-06:
| FSU | Current & future EU candidates
| Arab
world | G20
emerging markets
| Asia | Africa (NEPAD) |
| Political pluralism: modernisation of political parties (WFD interest)
| | | |
| | |
| Strengthening civil society |
| | | |
| |
| Independent media | |
| | | |
|
| Political oversight: parliamentary practice, local authority, elections (focus of WFD activity)
| | | |
| | |
| Public expenditure and administrative reform
| | | |
| | |
| Macroeconomic and financial framework |
| | | |
| |
| Action on corruption | |
| | | |
|
| Improving the environment for investment |
| | |
| | |
32. Examples of specific projects
— Financial support for political parties and NGOs
in the Arab world that support gradual introduction of democracy
from the bottom up (civil society) and an increasing role for
Parliaments and elected governments (Strategy for the Arab World,
paragraph 19).
— Getting BBC Arabic service on FM; subsidising
weekly Arabic versions of western newspapers (Strategy for the
Arab World, paragraph 19).
— Support media in anti-corruption campaigns by
running workshops in Egypt to help journalists working in difficult
circumstances report on anti-corruption issues.
— Provide training to central bank staff in the
FSU and the Balkans in banking supervision.
— Secondment of officials to Cabinet Office equivalents
in current and potential EU candidates to help develop structures
to absorb EU financial and technical assistance.
— Technical assistance to stimulate financial services
in Morocco.
— Investment Compact for the Near East (including
Turkey) to stimulate regional integration and promote flows of
inward FDI.
— Provide technical assistance to current and potential
EU candidates and China, for them to design strategies for labour
market reform.
— Support administrative reform to enable China
to play a constructive part in the international community and
open China's markets.
Appendix A—3: Energy and Environment Strategy
Objectives
33. This strategy will support FCO Objective 3, PSA 7,
and in particular "better environmental governance"
and "enhanced security of energy supplies".
Work in this stream will be integrated with that of the governance
and democracy stream, with which there are strong synergies on
democracy building, combating corruption and management of natural
resources as a part of good economic governance. It will also
complement work on the FCO's wider security objectives, eg through
the Conflict Prevention Pools, by helping to reduce tensions over
scarcity or abundance of natural resources.
Funding
34. The indicative allocations for this funding stream
from 2003-04 to 2005-06 are £5 million/£9 million/£13
million. This incorporates the existing Environment Fund (£3
million/£3 million/£3 million). Of the 2003-04 allocation,
£1.2 million is committed to ongoing EF projects, including
on renewable energy (£0.3 million). A further £1.8 million
will be allocated through the existing EF arrangements, focusing
on projects that will support PSA 7 and should fit within the
GOF priorities. From 2004-05, all new projects will be selected
through the GOF processes.
35. There is some relevant HMG funding outside the FCO.
DfID supports energy and environment projects in the poorest countries,
although they are increasingly pulling out of sector-specific
programmes and turning to budgetary support mechanisms. DEFRA
supports some international work, notably on biodiversity (the
£7 million Darwin Initiative) and climate change. DTI/BTI
are supporting nuclear clean-up work in Russia (£84 million)
and other energy-related work. British Council has a Science,
Engineering and Environment programme (£8 million in 2002-03).
Energy
36. Aim: to promote a step change in the governance of
international energy resources and systems in order to help secure
the UK's medium-term environment and energy security objectives
as articulated in the Energy White Paper. GOF will be used to
support a concerted programme of work which increases international
and regional collaboration on energy sector governance. This will
include:
— A step change in engagement with key governments
on energy issues and UK initiatives through a network of cross-cutting
energy teams in posts, AMED and EPD, both through political dialogues
eg UK-US energy dialogue, and development of activities using
GOF funds, such as promoting sustainable energy policies in oil/gas
producing regions eg west Africa.
— Developing the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Partnership (REEEP) launched at WSSD into a truly global partnership
which accelerates the use of low carbon technologies. Expanding
membership (now includes Japan, Italy, Indonesia, Brazil, South
Africa, Mexico, Shell, BP, WWF), leveraging in £40 million
in matching funding and building on the political consensus around
the WSSD Renewable Energy declaration in other international fora.
— Initiating a focused set of initiatives and activities
on energy security, power sector reform and low carbon energy
through international processes and institutions such as the International
Energy Agency and World Bank. This would include complementary
funding with OGDs, eg DTI/OST on the low carbon initiative, in
order to stimulate political activity and consensus.
Environmental governance
37. Aim: improved environmental governance at the global,
regional and country levels in order to secure the UK's environmental
and sustainable development goals, including implementation of
WSSD commitments on reversing negative environmental trends and
decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation. GOF-funded
activity will complement political and diplomatic work to build
influence and consensus on governance reform with key UN member
states, especially in the G77. It will be carefully coordinated
with DfID and DEFRA. Key themes will be:
— Environmental democracy: covering access to information,
public participation in decision-making and access to justice.
GOF funding will be targeted on the Access Initiative, a global
coalition of NGOs; the WSSD Partnership for Principle 10 (of the
Rio Declaration, on environmental democracy), which brings together
NGOs and governments; and extension of the legal principles enshrined
in the UNECE Aarhus Convention, the only multilateral legal instrument
in the field. GOF support would help develop an effective integrating
framework, with a geographical focus initially on the newly independent
states of the UNECE region, Latin America and South East Asia.
— Governance of natural resources: priorities would
be forest law enforcement and governance (including tackling illegal
logging) and management of transboundary water resources. Geographically,
the focus would initially be on West and Central Africa, China
and South East Asia (eg through the Africa and Asia Forest Law
Enforcement and Governance processes), and Amazonia. In 2004-05
and 2005-06, work could expand into the UNECE region (eg through
the proposed UNECE Environment Strategy for Eastern Europe, Caucasus
and Central Asia).
— Capacity-building for better governance, including
implementation of multilateral environmental agreements: GOF funding
will be used to develop strategic partnerships with leading organisations
in the field, both NGOs and multilateral institutions. Wherever
possible, GOF programmes would work with and build on WSSD multi-stakeholder
partnerships such as the Sustainable Tourism Initiative to capture
the economic benefits of good environmental governance. GOF support
would be targeted on implementation of key MEAs promoting better
management and improved access to the benefits of natural resources,
including through economic means eg Kyoto, Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety, CITES, and Aarhus. Funding would be targeted on
developing countries critical to achieving the objectives of the
MEAs, and the Overseas Territories through the framework of the
OT Environment Charters agreed following the 1999 White Paper.
Appendix A—4: International Security Strategy
38. The International Security (IS) strand of the Global
Opportunities Fund (GOF) has been established to support FCO Objectives
1 and PSAs 1, 2 and 8. Activity under this strand will take place
within the strategy detailed below with programmes being agreed
between CTPD, Geographical Departments and Posts overseas.
The bulk of the funds available (£4 million in FY 2003-04)
will be allocated to CT Assistance programmes designed to develop
CT capacity through enhanced bilateral dialogues with third countries,
and through the UK's key role in multilateral organisations (UN,
EU, G8) as a leading player in wider, international CT efforts.
Counter-Terrorism Assistance (CTA)
39. CTA is primarily delivered within the context of
an established and ongoing counter-terrorism dialogue with key
partner states in support of HMG's wider counter-terrorism strategy.
CTPD, along with geographic departments and Posts, is establishing
these relationships within four priority geographic areas. Prioritisation
is determined by the threat to UK interests. Most of our CTA will
therefore be delivered within these regions:
There is also a requirement to ensure that targeted assistance
can be delivered outside of established dialogues where an immediate
need arises, as with terrorist attacks or recent activity (eg
Mombasa).
40. Within the strategy there are three main strands
of activity that can be considered for funding. The first two
areas are CT specific and will receive the majority of funds available.
The third area is non-CT specific but will have a direct impact
upon counter-terrorism issues. Programmes within this area may
require distinct funding from the CT stream, joint funding from
the CT and an alternate stream (eg human rights training), or
merely feed the CT strategy from a related thematic programme
(eg good governance).
Operational Counter-Terrorism Assistance
41. This is primarily delivered bilaterally, government-to-government
given the nature of the assistance. Programmes result either from
needs assessment visits or from direct requests from third countries.
Typical assistance of this sort is listed below. Provision is
limited only by existing UK capacity:
— CT Crisis Management Training.
— Hostage and Crisis Negotiation Training.
— Improvised Explosive Device Disposal Training.
UNSCR 1373 Counter-Terrorism Assistance
42. As part of the UK's commitment to support the work
of the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee and assist state's to meet
the requirements of UNSCR 1373 and raise global standards of CT
capacity in these areas, the UK is working with key partners to
develop and deliver thematic CTA programmes. Present programmes
focus on Stage A priorities as set by the CTC (CT legislation
and Terrorist Financing). These include:
— Counter-Terrorism Legislation and Administrative
Measures.
— Combating of Terrorist Financing Assistance.
— Charity Regulatory Mechanisms.
Future programmes will need to continue and/or build on these
themes and progress onto assisting states to develop capacity
in Stage B priorities as set by the CTC, including law enforcement
capacity building (police, customs, immigration) and improvements
in border management.
Wider capacity building assistance and reform programmes
43. The sustainability of any specific CTA programme
depends heavily upon the wider capacity of the government or organisation
to which it is being delivered. For example specialist CT training
for police units will only deliver long-term benefit if the wider
police force is well trained and managed and CT legislation will
only be implemented properly if the government concerned has developed
an efficient judicial system.
It is beyond the scope of the CTA strategy to tackle these
issues across the board. However, in specific countries there
may be a requirement to deliver targeted assistance programmes
to address some of these in support of specific CT projects (when
funding from alternate streams is not available) eg wider police
training or reform programmes, or to achieve larger objectives,
one consequence of which might be a reduction in the threat from
terrorism.
Existing commitments
44. FY 2003-04 funds under this stream will be required
to finance the following existing international security/counter-terrorism
commitments, all of which are consistent with the principal objective
to build international CT capacity.
— Counter-Terrorism Exercises—both domestic
and international, including substantial work with the Greek government
in respect of security for the 2004 Olympics.
— UK support for the successful bringing to justice
of the murderers of Brigadier Saunders and the eradication of
N17 terrorists in Greece.
— Capacity building of NATO aspirant countries through
English Language Training to enhance interoperability, which has
important CT consequences.
Appendix A—5: Science and Technology Strategy
Relevant FCO Objectives
45. Science and technology (S&T) contributes to the
following FCO Objectives:
FCO Objective 2
— Enhanced competitiveness of companies in the UK
through overseas sales and investments; and a continuing high
level of quality foreign direct investment (delivered through
British Trade International.)
FCO Objective 3
— Increased prosperity and a better quality of life
in the UK and worldwide, through effective economic and political
governance globally.
FCO Objective 5
— International decisions and actions which advance
UK objectives and interests. Authoritative advice and support
to the whole of Government on international issues. Positive foreign
perceptions of the UK and the Government's policies.
Existing Activity Funded by FCO or Others
46. There is currently no major FCO source of programme
funding for S&T work. The FCO works with DTI/BTI to promote
British commercial interests in high-tech fields. The British
Council supports £8 million of international research collaboration
including two interdependent programme areas ("Excellence
in International Science" and "Understanding Science
in Society") and promotes networking of young scientists.
47. The Office of Science and Technology (OST) has networking
funds of £0.7 million to the best UK scientists to enable
them to meet and network with opposite numbers overseas. The Royal
Society deploys around £6 million to stimulate international
collaboration through networking funds, fellowships and travel
grants. The Research Councils support UK scientists in some international
collaboration that is in support of their overall objectives.
A number of Government Departments (eg DfID, MoD) undertake
a significant amount of research, which includes international
collaboration. Organisations with non-public sector main funding
sources (eg Wellcome Trust, Royal Academy of Engineering) also
support international collaboration. Funding for large-scale multinational
projects is available through the EU under the Framework programme.
48. The above sources of UK funding tend to be focused
on the excellence of the science to be undertaken, not necessarily
the international relationship that the FCO might wish to promote.
The activities tend to be run responsively, offering support in
response to specific individual needs from within the UK science
and engineering research community, rather than proactively in
pursuit of an international goal. Whilst there are a number of
sources of funding for initial visits and networking, sources
of project funding for international partnerships are more limited.
There is a gap between funding available for initial visits and
funding available for longer term established programmes. There
are few sources to help build a relationship following an initial
visit, until the partnership is established and can apply for
longer term funding. The UK is often not the partner of choice
because of the limits of funding available for international research
collaboration.
New Activity We Might Wish to Fund through GOF
49. Up to £1million will be available for S&T
work in FY 2003-04. We will use this to:
— Promote the UK as international partner of choice,
secure UK influence and promote UK interests in negotiations;
— Pump prime commercially edged high technology
collaboration by promoting international linkages;
— Assist access/remove barriers to international
collaboration which matches or complements existing or potential
UK strengths;
— Focus on the priority regions/countries agreed
with Whitehall stakeholders. These are USA, Europe, Japan, Russia,
India, China, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, Canada and Korea,
Israel and Taiwan.
Applications must show how GOF support will add value to
the UK science and industry base and facilitate longer-term international
relationships.
Key Departments
50. The FCO's Science and Technology Unit co-ordinates
the network of overseas science attaches. EcPol, EPD and AMED
also have an interest. The DTI, BTI, OST, British Council, Royal
Society and Research Councils all work with FCO on S&T through
CSAIC and a BTI-led committee on wealth creation aspects of S&T.
Appendix B—CPP Strategies with Allocations for
FY 03/04
51. Afghanistan: Support to security sector environment;
conflict resolution and prevention dialogue good governance/rule
of law programmes (£16.5 million).
Strengthening the United Nations: Capacity building with
UN for conflict prevention and peacekeeping; work with peacekeeping
providers to improve numbers and quality of troops available (£10.5
million).
Small Arms Light Weapons: Strategy announced at 2001 UN conference
on small arms to implement programme of actions. Targets: implementation
of regional norms on SALW, including national legislation on improving
exports, registrations etc. Specific programmes in Africa, Latin
America (£9.25 million).
Central and Eastern Europe: Stabilisation, democracy building
including SSR support for new and aspirant EU and NATO countries.
Ministers have asked for a graduation plan for the strategy to
wind down over next few years (£4.8 million).
The Balkans: Supporting SSR, national safety, security and
access to justice, and strengthening democracy and inter-ethnic
relations (£11.2 million).
Russia/FSU: Aimed at reducing potential for renewed fighting
in the frozen conflicts of Russia/FSU including promotion of democracy
and rule of law, reduction of ethnic, religious and political
tensions, SSR and reduction of tensions over territory and natural
resources (£11.16 million).
Nepal: Aimed at developing peace process between Nepalese
government and Maoist insurgents, including through military advice
and training, development programmes to provide alternative means
of revenue, international pressure and development of peace process
(£6 million).
Middle East: To increase chance of peace settlement and improve
internal and external security of countries across region, through
identifying non-traditional actors, CBMs peace conference, supporting
security sector programme in Gulf states (£5 million).
Security Sector Reform: To develop approach to SSR, improve
spread of best practice and support SSR projects in countries
covered by Global and Africa (£4.75 million).
Indonesia/East Timor: To tackle underlying reasons for conflicts,
promote community reconciliation through SSR in Indonesia, and
support conflict reduction in and develop ET defence force, police
service and judiciary, promote post conflict reconciliation (£1.48
million).
Belize/Guatemala: To support acceptance of facilitators recommendations
on Belize/Guatemala border dispute and promote implementation
(£1.5 million).
India/Pakistan/Kashmir: To promote a final settlement of
Kashmir issues in a way that reduces risk of military (including
nuclear) conflict between India/Pakistan through promoting governance
and human rights in Kashmir, supporting normalisation of India
and Pakistan, bilateral relationship and supporting civil society
conflict resolution and peace building capacity in India (£2
million).
OSCE/COE: Enhance COE and OSCE capacity in conflict prevention
work through improving quality of relevant OSCE staff, promoting
stability in FSU and Balkans (£l million).
Sri Lanka: Supporting LTTE/Sri Lanka peace process (£1.1
million).
EU Civilian Crisis Management: Strengthen EU capacity to
deliver coherent civil crisis management policies and interventions
(£0.5 million?).
Tackling Economic and Financial Causes of Conflict in Africa:
Sever links between resource extraction and violent conflict,
eg by creating an international framework to promote transparency
in payment of revenues generated by natural resource extraction
(£0.2 million?).
Building African conflict prevention/peacekeeping capacity:
Enhance peacekeeping capacity of African armed forces through:
support for peacekeeping training programmes; development of regional
centres of excellence; strengthening regional and sub-regional
organisations (£5.9 million).
Sierra Leone: (£27.5 million).
Great Lakes (DRC, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda): (£5.6 million).
Angola: Improve relations between GoA and UNITA, coordinate
an effective response to UNITA personnel in quartering camps and
promote an inclusive political dialogue leading to the establishment
of a legitimate, constitutional political authority in Angola,
which is elected, respects human rights and exercises full control
over its territory (£0.3 million?).
Sudan: Work with the US, Norway and other partners to achieve
an agreed and inclusive settlement of civil war in Sudan (£5.5
million).
Nigeria: Support to Security Sector reform in order to promote
democratically accountable armed forces and support community
peace building initiatives (£1.5 million).
Ivory Coast: Support to ECOWAS monitoring force (£2
million?).
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
March 2003
|
