Annual Review Template

Title: Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria (SPRiNG)
Programme Value £ (full life): £38m	Review date: April 2024
Programme Code: 300203	AMP start date: 16/03/2023	AMP end date: 30/04/2028

Summary of Programme Performance

Year	2023	2024	2025	2026	2027	2028
Overall Output Score	A
Risk Rating	Major

DevTracker Link to Business Case:
DevTracker Link to results framework:

A. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW [1-1 ½ pages]

Programme summary:

SPRING is a 4.5-year, Plus a year for procurement. £38 million conflict and stability programme which will work to reduce conflict and support Nigerian communities to better adapt to the effects of climate change. The programme is 15-20% UK International Climate Finance (ICF) eligible. SPRiNG will support the reduction of rural violence and increased peace, security, justice, and climate resilience for citizens in volatile regions of Northern Nigeria. Its likely geographical focus will be Northwest and North Central Nigeria, implementing directly in at least three states, and engaging regionally and nationally to influence scale-up in other states. It has been designed with flexibility to support pilot and/or rapid response initiatives in other regions in response to HMG priorities and contextual changes. It will promote and protect human rights for people of diverse religious, ethnic, gender and other identity factors, and mitigate upstream threats to the UK by reducing the conditions that foster instability, terrorism and serious organised crime.

SPRING will increase the safety of 1.5 million, and climate resilience of 300,000, poor and vulnerable women and men in Nigeria by: (a) supporting coalitions and locally-led solutions to improve conflict prevention, reduction, security and justice and natural resource management in target areas; (b) catalysing structural change on critical barriers to peace; and (c) supporting partnerships for peace with likeminded international partners to multiply every £1 spent by FCDO. It will support more sustainable natural resource management as a pathway to conflict resolution and peacebuilding, thus helping vulnerable communities to better adapt to the effects of climate change. 30% of SPRiNG’s resources will be driven towards gender equality and inclusion.

Component 1, Strategic Direction: Critical issues and transformational opportunities, both programmatic and advocative, are identified and acted upon in a timely manner across the following components:

Component 2, Catalysing Change: Key stakeholders come together around issues of shared concern to push more effectively for change.

Component 3, Systems and Structures: Strengthened and more inclusive mechanisms for preventing, managing, and responding to conflicts and violence.

Component 4: Partnerships for Peace: Other donor and HMG programmes influenced and leveraged for greater impact.

Summary supporting narrative for the overall score in this review [1-2 paragraphs]

As the procurement for SPRING is nearing completion, this review focuses on the procurement process and other design activities. The logical framework (logframe) for this period includes these initial processes under a single output and will need to be updated for the next annual review to take account of the inception and onset of the delivery phase.

The overall score for SRING is an A. The programme has successfully undergone procurement through a competitive process and the inception period is due to commence in April 2024 following contract signature.

In parallel with the procurement process for the principal contract, SPRiNG supported two additional design activities. Under Component 1, it funded an Office of Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation (OCSM) consultant to produce a Joint Assessment of Conflict and Stability (JACS) for Nigeria. Under Component 3, funding was agreed for a pilot project with Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT) to undertake mediation activities in Nasarawa state.

Major lessons and recommendations for the year ahead [1/2 page]

As the procurement process has not yet been finalised, there are no major lessons to identify at this stage. FCDO will, in collaboration with the successful supplier, ensure that activities are informed by learning and that the ToC and log-frame are updated accordingly.

One example of good practice emerging from the project with IFIT is a comprehensive conflict analysis that describes in detail the dispute’s causes and the contribution of land access regimes to the conflict. This is a template that could be applied to other geographical areas of Nigeria to assess highly-localised conflict dynamics.

B: THEORY OF CHANGE AND PROGRESS TOWARDS OUTCOMES [1-2 pages]

Summarise the programme’s theory of change, including any changes to outcome and impact indicators from the original business case. [1/2 page]

As SPRING is not yet operational and its theory of change has not yet been tested, there are no proposed changes to outcome and impact indicators. The Theory of Change as set out in the approved Business Case is as follows:

In a context where…

Politics is pre-eminent in violence – a dynamic sustained through successive attempts and failures to evolve democratic processes and exacerbated by oil revenues. Violence is often sponsored and fuelled by elites, who instrumentalise Nigeria’s ethnic and religious diversity for political and economic gain.

There is a cumulative effect of intersecting factors driving the deterioration of security across the country, including failing conflict, security and justice mechanisms. This threatens to progressively increase the pressures on systems, resources and resilience to violence, as well as sometimes manifests in unpredictable incidents and changing patterns of violence.

Citizens highlight deficiencies and demand better security, justice, conflict and natural resource management systems; but this has had limited success, partly because of insufficient attention to the incentives of those with power to get behind and fully implement reforms. In the absence of systems that work for them, citizens have felt forced to take matters into their own hands to protect themselves and their assets, and to fight back.

Despite escalating violence, there are pockets of resilience, where political manipulation is resisted and/or processes that genuinely promote peace matter to enough people with power.

International actors tend to underestimate the power of the informal rules of the game and respond to symptoms rather than causes. Programmatic responses have tried to ‘fix’ bits of a specific sector (such as security) with success limited to short-term and/or hyper-localised outcomes.

The UK therefore seeks a fresh, cost-effective approach to tackling an entrenched problem that matters to UK interests in the West Africa region.

If SPRiNG…

Thinks politically: Using inclusive political economy and conflict analysis to understand a) the blockers and enablers to systemic reform; b) the issues most likely to attract those with power and increase incentives to strengthen systems in specific areas and/or collaborate around common interests; and c) the opportunities and openings to intervene on a particular dimension of conflict.

And works politically: Building from a nuanced understanding of conflict drivers and political interests; designing interventions that create mutual interests and demand better management of violence; working through issue-based coalitions to positively influence behaviours of key actors in target systems; seizing opportunities for transformative change when they arise; and delivering as part of an integrated HMG strategy that draws on diplomatic as well as programmatic levers.

Is positioned well within conflict, security, justice and natural resource management systems and affected communities to be able to identify and seize opportunities to unblock barriers to progress, as well as support implementation of sustainable change.

And delivers from a programme platform that provides politically agile strategic direction, decision-making and iterative learning on how to shift incentives to make more effective investments in systems and structures.

Then…

UK deepens understanding of political drivers of violence, becomes better at spotting issues around which traction can be gained, and shapes better incentives for powerholders to get behind reform.

Conflict actors pursue more peaceful strategies for securing their interests and maintaining the advantages they have gained from participating in violence.

Parts of security, conflict management, justice and resource sectors have a greater interest and capacity to invest in meaningful improvements; collectively they provide a better service to people

Ordinary people see positive alternatives to ‘taking matters into their own hands’ as fewer women and men are killed/injured because of rural violence over a specific period.

Describe where the programme is on/off track to contribute to the expected outcomes and impact. What action is planned in the year ahead? [1/2 page]

As SPRING is still in the final stages of procurement, it is too early to determine whether it is on/off track to achieve the programme outcomes and impact. The year ahead will see the procurement process conclude, followed by a six-month inception period and the commencement of core activities.

Justify whether the programme should continue, based on its own merits and in the context of the wider portfolio [1 paragraph]

Rising conflict and insecurity are threatening Nigeria’s stability and undermining UK objectives to increase trade and investment, promote human rights, democracy and liberty, tackle climate change, address terrorism and criminality which threaten UK interests, lift people out of poverty, and deliver the Sustainable Development Goals. SPRING builds on the lessons learned from two decades of UK work on conflict, security, justice and governance in Nigeria. SPRING will take a ‘thinking and working politically’ approach, facilitating coalitions which unite diverse actors around common issues to drive change – an approach which has been proven to work in Nigeria. It will invest in continuous learning and contribute to the global knowledge base on climate security, conflict prevention and resolution, and citizen-responsive security and justice.

C. DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING [aim for 1 page per output]

Output Title	Procurement phase completed and design activities undertaken
Output number:	1	Output Score:	A
Impact weighting (%):	100	Weighting revised since last AR?	No

Indicator(s)	Milestone(s) for this review	Progress
Tender documents developed and preferred bidder identified through competitive process.	TORs finalised; EME held, and ITT issued.	Met
Design phase activities completed.	JACS update finalised; pilot projects completed.	Met

Briefly describe the output’s activities and provide supporting narrative for the score. [max 1/2 page]

FCDO Ministerial approval of the Business Case was received from the Minister for Africa in September 2022 and was followed by HM Treasury endorsement of the programme. An Early Market Engagement event took place in November 2022. A series of delays in finalising the Terms of Reference (ToRs), and relaunch of the CSSF framework, meant that the Invitation to Tender (ITT) was not issued until October 2023. Tender responses were received in November 2023 and the technical and commercial evaluation concluded in January 2024. We did also lose quite a bit of time with delays in being able to confirm the available budget.

Given that SPRING will be 15-20% ICF eligible, the ToRs also identified the need for bidders to outline how they would use data, research and evidence to critically assess the relative contributions of climate change and environmental degradation to rural conflict in Nigeria. Research under SPRING will identify whether climate change can accurately be identified as a conflict driver and attempt to quantify its impact relative to other causes, such as changes to water or land use. Interventions will be designed taking these research findings into full account.

At the time of this review, SPRiNG procurement was in its final stages and contract signature imminent; the inception period is expected to commence by 1 April. Contract award will be followed by a 6-month inception phase, 40 months of implementation and 3 months of exit and closure activities.

In parallel with the procurement process, two separate design activities were undertaken. A JACS Update was undertaken to assess changes in the conflict context for Nigeria and examine specific trends in Nigeria’s geo-political Zones over in the period following the previous JACS review in 2015. The JACS analysis provides a framework for a joint HMG understanding of the main issues and drivers of conflict and instability in Nigeria and will also serve as a baseline conflict assessment for the context in which SPRING will operate. Its overall purpose was to examine whether HMG assumptions, policies, objectives and plans were appropriate for Nigeria’s conflict and stability context. It was commissioned in the context of a recent Federal election and new President, increasing levels of violence across the country, acute financial pressures and a challenging external neighbourhood. These factors, combined with reviews of UK policy and programming, ensured that the JACS Update was timely and presented an opportunity for reflection on refocussing of effort.2

Funding was also agreed for a 5-month pilot project with the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT) to undertake mediation activities between the Bassa and Egbura communities in Nasarawa state to resolve an ongoing conflict over land ownership. The project was a test of SPRING’s flexible approach as envisioned in the business case, and its ability to seize opportunities for transformative change as they arise. In this instance, IFIT was approached by the leaders of the two communities themselves to negotiate an end to a lengthy and at times violent dispute has led to the formation of ethnic-based militia groups and large-scale displacement of the Bassa people out of Toto and into Nasarawa LGA and the Federal Capital Territory. The project also provided a means of testing the abilities of a relatively small Nigerian NGO in receipt of UK funding for the first time to assess its suitability for further longer-term funding under the programme.

The results of the project were encouraging and could lead to future FCDO support to IFIT, both in Nasarawa and elsewhere. Their work was based on a comprehensive conflict analysis whose template could theoretically be applied to other areas of Nigeria. It convincingly described the dispute’s causes and discussed the contribution of land access regimes and local government. IFIT’s work with the Bassa and Egbura will now move into a subsequent phase which will build upon the project’s lessons drawn both from the analysis and from the team’s engagements with combatants and their communities.

Describe any changes to this output during the past year, and any planned changes as a result of this review. [1 paragraph]

No changes have been made to any outputs. Once procurement is complete, outputs, indicators and milestones will be updated as necessary during the inception period.

Progress on recommendations from the previous AR (if completed), lessons learned this year and recommendations for the year ahead [1-2 paragraphs]

This is SPRiNG’s first annual review. The chief recommendation for the year ahead is to use what is learnt during the upcoming inception period to update and refine the ToC and logframe in a way that maintains their utility throughout SPRiNG’s existence.

D: VALUE FOR MONEY (1 page)

Key cost drivers and performance

As SPRING is not yet operational there is no change in the value for money proposition as outlined in the Business Case. Based on global and Nigeria-based evidence, and a thorough assessment of feasible options, the preferred option of a combined approach using local, problem-driven interventions and coalitions with support to systems and structures is likely to yield the most significant benefits. These benefits include economic benefits to households (in terms of incomes) and IGR (in terms of lower reductions in tax revenues due to conflict). The benefits also include peace, access to justice and security. These outweigh the costs and associated risks and offer VfM for UK investment. VfM indicators will be developed alongside the log frame during inception to monitor progress against a VfM proposition throughout SPRiNG’s implementation.

E: RISK [½ to 1 page]

The overall risk rating for the programme is ‘Major’ given the high-risk operating context. Robust risk assessment and mitigation is built into its design. All risks and mitigation measures (as outlined in the Business Case) continue to be relevant. This risk matrix alongside the mitigation measures will be updated during the inception phase of the programme. The highest risks are contextual, stemming from the volatile security situation. As set out in the Business Case, FCDO believes the potential rewards are commensurate with the level of risk and within FCDO Nigeria’s risk appetite.

Careful and robust processes and measures will be put in place to ensure programme delivery remains within the risk threshold and that risks are managed as they arise. The FCDO programme SRO will have overall responsibility for managing risk and will be accountable to the Nigeria Development Director and Integrated Service and Delivery Unit (ISDU), which has overall oversight of risk for FCDO Nigeria. Severe risks will be escalated through the FCDO system as required, as well as to the programme Steering Committee. Working with the SRO, the Operational Team will monitor the balance of risk across the SPRiNG portfolio of interventions to ensure that the programme remains within the agreed risk appetite. We will maintain the highest standards of safeguarding and ensure flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances as required.

The key risk that has been realised to date was that challenges relating to funding availability and procurement have delayed the start of implementation. SPRiNG will seek to reclaim lost programming time via a no-cost extension to the Business Case.

F: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT: DELIVERY, COMMERCIAL & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE [1 - 1 ½ pages]

Summarise the performance of partners and FCDO, notably on commercial and financial issues.

SPRiNG will be delivered primarily through procurement of a contracted supplier, who will deliver most of the programme. Accountable Grant Agreements (AGAs) and/or Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) will also be used to do early piloting while procurement is underway, and during implementation to support potential joint initiatives with multilateral or other development partners. All expenses for inception and implementation phases will be paid based on actuals and can be paid monthly. The mobilisation outputs and payment milestones and Key Performance Indicators against them will be refined between FCDO and the successful service provider during the inception/mobilisation phase.

SPRiNG is envisaged to be a partnership between FCDO and the supplier. FCDO does not intend to be prescriptive but rather to establish the boundaries within which the supplier has licence to experiment. The complex conflict system in rural Nigeria means that the best interventions are more likely to be discovered rather than planned. This approach requires the enthusiastic embrace of ‘safe failure.’ FCDO will respond positively to failed innovations so long as they a) emerge from the research, evidence and expert analysis which is critical to the programme, and b) they are learnt from and inform programme adaptation.

After conducting Due Diligence, FCDO signed an AGA with IFIT to undertake a 5-month pilot project mediating between the Bassa and Egbura communities in Nasarawa state, aiming to resolve their ongoing conflict over land ownership. We hold monthly delivery meetings for monitoring, communication purposes, risk management, financial management and review of other delivery tools as appropriate. This comprises SRO, PRO, and Programme Managers. IFIT’s performance, albeit based on a single small project, has been very strong.

Date of last narrative financial report	Not Applicable at this stage	Date of last audited annual statement	Not Applicable at this stage