Previous page | Contents | Next page
13.1  |  Resources
A new Stabilisation Aid Fund (SAF) would be established to “take on” funding for
stabilisation and reconstruction activity in “‘hot’ conflict zones” from the Conflict
Prevention Pool.
New governance and programme management arrangements for the Conflict
Prevention Pool and the SAF would be introduced to ensure that activity was
based on a common strategy, and that expenditure was prioritised effectively
against that strategy.
649.  In December, the PCRU was renamed the Stabilisation Unit (SU), reflecting the
emergence of the broader concept of stabilisation and the Unit’s new role managing
the SAF.403
Reflections on the allocation of funding
650.  The table below shows the departmental settlements for the MOD, the FCO
and DFID from 2002/03 to 2009/10 (under the 2002, 2004 and 2007 Comprehensive
Spending Reviews).404
MOD
FCO
DFID
Table 10: Departmental settlements, 2002/03 to 2009/10 (£bn)
2002/03
28.0
1.5
3.9
2003/04
29.0
1.5
4.0
2004/05
29.2
1.6
4.0
2005/06
29.9
1.7
4.9
2006/07
30.2
1.7
5.3
2007/08
30.2
1.6
5.5
2008/09
30.8
1.6
5.7
2009/10
31.1
1.6
6.6
651.  The Inquiry describes earlier in this Section how the MOD reclaimed the net
additional costs of military operations (NACMO) from the Reserve under an established
procedure.
652.  All other departments sought to cover additional costs by reprioritising within their
existing budgets and, if and when that proved insufficient, bidding to the Treasury to
secure additional funding from the Reserve.
Differences in funding military operations and civilian activities
653.  In his evidence to the Inquiry, Sir Mark Lyall‑Grant described the different levels
of funding available to departments:
“… you have the MOD which can call on the Reserve for unforeseen military
expenditure. You have DFID, who have a large amount of programme money, but
403 Paper Stabilisation Unit, December 2007, ‘Stabilisation Unit’.
404 Email Treasury [junior official] to Iraq Inquiry [junior official], 17 April 2014, ‘Further Queries Relating
to Resources’. Figures are near cash settlements, in real terms (2008/09 prices). Figures may differ from
Comprehensive Spending Review settlement letters due to budget exchange, inter‑departmental transfers
and other factors.
551
Previous page | Contents | Next page