| Summary
In this report, we scrutinise the performance of the Department for International Development (DFID). Examining DFID's 2003 Departmental Report, we analyse how it manages, measures and reports its performance against its own targets, as well as carrying out more detailed studies of some of DFID's policies.
Although we commend many aspects of DFID's work and conclude that the structure of DFID's report and its presentation of information are better than in previous years, the Committee raises concerns about specific policy areas. In particular, Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) and Agriculture.
In terms of performance reporting, the Department must ensure that it reports on the full range of its activities and not just those that are related to Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets. DFID also needs to report on how it is working to tackle underperformance instead of merely identifying where underperformance occurs. The report highlights the importance of having clear and consistent financial reporting and suggests that DFID provides more information about risk management and financial flexibility, revealing the processes that allow it to respond to global crises.
In later chapters we commend DFID's commitment to directly supporting government budgets in aid-receiving countries and welcome the development of mechanisms to evaluate this type of assistance. The report looks specifically at DFID's approach to Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs) through which it supports and rewards countries that can show evidence of "good governance". Although this helps to ensure that development assistance is well targeted, we stress that "poor performers" should not be neglected. There should be more on offer to "failing states" than just humanitarian assistance and DFID must find ways of engaging with these countries.
We also identify a need for greater communication between donors and recipients: the commitments and expectations of both sides must be clearer. It would help aid-receiving countries if donors were open about their expectations and the conditions under which they will withdraw their support. Recipient governments also need a clear understanding of a donor's priorities and conditions and if they are to be surer about the predictability of aid flows. DFID has strengths in the area of donor-recipient communication and we encourage the pioneering use it has made of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU), greater use of which could improve both understanding between donors and recipients.
The Committee is concerned about what it sees as DFID's lack of a coherent strategy for agriculture and calls on DFID to do more than simply seek to create an "enabling" environment in which agriculture may flourish. We consider that DFID should aim to boost smallholder production, arguing that helping small farmers to produce more food is a more cost-effective policy than food aid.
On Sexual and Reproductive Health, we believe that the Departmental Report should include additional data in relation to the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on Maternal Health. We argue DFID should demonstrate how it gives priority to SRH and contend that the existence of a MDG relating to HIV/AIDS should not be allowed to cause a shift in focus and funding away from broader SRH issues.
| 
