4Support for local human rights programmes
19.We received evidence from Stonewall that:
A significant barrier to LGBT rights organisations securing funding can be the stipulation that recipient groups need to be legally or officially registered organisations, something that many organisations are actively prevented from doing by their own governments’ discriminatory laws. In some countries, attempts to register organisations have led to state-sanctioned crackdowns on LGBT organising.26
20.We asked the Minister of State in oral evidence to elaborate on the requirement that applicants to the Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy be registered. She confirmed that applicants to the Fund must be registered, the reasons given being that to distribute funding to unregistered organisations may increase the danger to which some unregistered organisations are exposed and to ensure accountability for taxpayers’ money.27 It was pointed out to us that unregistered organisations can access funds from Posts.28 We recognise that the FCO must take account of the dangers to which those involved with human rights organisations are exposed and must ensure accountability for taxpayers’ money. We also appreciate there may be issues in distributing funds to organisations which are deemed illegal in particular countries. In balancing these issues, the wider public good in supporting those working to advance human rights deserves to be considered alongside local legal and practical impediments. The suggested alternative source of support from bilateral funds is a much more restrictive source of funds and may not make a tangible difference to organisations where the human rights climate is so hostile that they are unable to register. The current administration of the Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy acts against an intelligent deployment of resources which takes into account a clear assessment of in-country human rights priorities. The FCO should change its policy on the mandatory registration of organisations which apply for funding from the Magna Carta Fund to enable those which have been suitably vetted but face genuine restrictions to proceed to the next stage of the application process.
21.We welcome the doubling of the FCO’s annual funding for its dedicated human rights and democracy programme (renamed the Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy) to £10.6 million. However, we note that the guidance for the Magna Carta Fund indicates that 97% of the funding will go to Official Development Assistance (ODA) countries.29 The FCO explained in written evidence30 that this leaves only £300,000 for projects in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel (excluding the Occupied Palestinian Territories) and Russia.31 Organisations in these countries do, however, have access to regional projects in which a majority of ODA countries are recipients and separately to the Arab Partnership Fund, the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund and bilateral programme funds. Whilst non-ODA countries such as Russia, Israel and countries in the Gulf may receive funding through regional projects and other FCO and multilateral funds, it is disappointing that organisations operating in these countries are restricted to only 3% of the dedicated funding through the Magna Carta Fund. This is a further distortion of the application of resources away from wider national interest priorities and towards the priorities of the restricted source of the funding.
29 Countries on the list of ODA Recipients of the Development Assistance Committee (an international forum of many of the largest funders of aid)
31 These are the only Magna Carta Fund priority countries which are not on the DAC’S list of ODA recipients
© Parliamentary copyright 2015
Prepared 30 March 2016