Second supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Department for International Development, responding to
additional questions submitted by the International Development
Committee
DFID RESTRUCTURING:
1. How have staff and resources been shifted
around to create the DFID's new policy division? Will the policy
division be responsible for implementation of policy? How is the
policy division linked to regional/country teams/programmes? DFID's
new policy division seems to be focussed solely on the formulation
of new policy—how will you ensure that current policy continues
to be effectively evaluated?
How have staff and resources been shifted around
to create DFID's new Policy Division?
Staff and resources previously dedicated to
DFID's central policy departments (eg Health and Population Department,
Economic Policy and Research Department) have been reallocated
to multi-disciplinary task-based teams and to a Programme Management
Unit which will manage the bulk of the programme spending within
Policy Division.
Where appropriate, programme spending has been
transferred to other divisions within DFID. Examples are contributions
to UN agencies, which have been transferred to the United Nations
and Commonwealth Department, which manages DFID's institutional
relationship with the UN.
Some staff have been recruited from elsewhere
(other DFID departments, other Whitehall departments, development
consultancy firms) to provide the skills required by teams.
Will the Policy Division be responsible for implementation
of policy?
Policy Division will develop innovative policy
on key development issues, working closely with others in DFID
and externally. Policy will continue to be implemented by DFID's
regional divisions and international division.
How is the Policy Division linked to regional/country
teams/programmes?
Policy Division teams will work closely with
regional/country teams—in many cases, staff working in regional
or country departments will be virtual members of teams. A significant
part of the work of many teams will be to share country experience
on specific issues throughout the department. Regional and International
Division Directors are formally linked to Policy Division through
their membership of the Policy Liaison Committee, which advises
on priorities for Policy Division.
DFID's new Policy division seems to be focused
solely on the formulation of new policy—how will you ensure
that current policy continues to be effectively evaluated?
Policy Division will use policy as the basis
for its thinking and in many cases this policy remains valid.
Policy Division's role is to evaluate existing policy and to undertake
new analysis, particularly on difficult and recently identified
issues.
DFID's Performance and Effectiveness Department
(PED) and Evaluation Department (EvD) will continue their work
on monitoring and evaluating performance throughout DFID. PED
are responsible for monitoring performance centrally against DFID's
Public Service Agreement and against our corporate risks, as well
as ensuring that lessons are learned across the Department. EvD
manages DFID's programme of independent evaluation studies, to
contribute to knowledge of what works and why, to assess whether
development interventions are effective and sustainable; and to
ensure accountability to people interested in or affected by development
activities.
Further detail of DFID's Policy Division reorganisation
can be found at Annex 1. (See Ev 56)
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT:
2. What is the department doing to address
the risks of not meeting its targets and objectives and about
risk management more generally?
Risk assessment and management has been strengthened
across DFID and is now (following best practice) built into our
performance management framework. Risk is assessed at all levels:
at project level, in Country Assistance Plans, in Director's Delivery
Plans, and at corporate level in the risk Register.
DFID's overarching approach to managing the
key risks to delivery of our targets is set out in a "Risk
Management Policy Framework". This was agreed by DFID's Management
Board in November 2002, and was drawn up partly in response to
the Strategy Unit's November 2002 report "Risk: Improving
government's capability to handle risk and uncertainty."
All DFID projects are scored High, Medium or
Low risk, and include risk mitigation strategies. The scores are
re-appraised annually. This information is recorded in the Project
Reporting Information System for Management (PRISM) database.
This allows for comparison of project risk ratings by country,
by region, and by sector. As mentioned above, risks to delivery
are included in Country Assistance Plans and in Director's Delivery
Plans. At present, Directors' Delivery Plans (plans for Delivery
of our PSA targets) are updated annually and the risks, risk ratings
and risk mitigation strategies included in the DDPs will be re-reassessed
annually.
DFID's risk Register was agreed by DFID's Management
Board in February 2003 and contains the key risks to the delivery
of our targets. The Management Board will review the risks in
the register on a Quarterly basis.
3. Can you provide more information about
the Joint Delivery Plans relating to targets shared with other
Departments that were mentioned during oral evidence?
DFID has three joint targets in its 2003-06
Public Service Agreement. These are:
— Target 1, Indicator 4, Conflict reduction,
(Joint with FCO and MoD)
— Target 3, Indicator 2, Debt relief
and support for MDGs, (Joint with HMT)
— Target 4, Trade, (Joint with DTI
and FCO)
The Africa Conflict pool currently has an annual
programme budget of £50 million. We have a Joint Delivery
plan for this that has been agreed with both the FCO and the MoD.
This plan details: Ownership, Direction and Context, Objectives
and Milestones, Actions, Dependencies, Risks, Resources, Monitoring
and Measurement. We also have a joint technical note and will
report joint on progress.
For Debt Relief we have a joint technical note
with the Treasury that underpins the target, and we will report
jointly with them on progress. We work very closely with HMT on
this, and agreed our Delivery Plan with them, although it is not
formally a joint plan.
On Trade each of the three departments has drawn
up separate delivery plans—which have been agreed with the
other departments. They focus on how each department will contribute
to the joint target. There is a joint technical note, and we will
report jointly report on progress to HMT. Our joint working on
this issue is backed up informal networks such as the Whitehall
Trade Policy Group. This brings together officials every month
from the six departments (DFID, DEFRA, HMT, Cabinet Office, DTI,
FCO) that work on trade issues.
4. What targets have been set for the global
health fund, and how will DFID be reporting on its impact across
the globe, rather than just through the very specific HIV/AIDS
target for sub-Saharan Africa?
DFID is committed to tackling HIV/AIDS and diseases
of poverty throughout the world. Our support is focussed mainly
on the poorest countries and therefore we measure; progress in
reducing under five mortality rates and HIV in pregnant women
in Africa; and HIV prevalence rates in vulnerable groups; TB detection
and cure rates and progress in reducing under five mortality rates
in Asia.
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and malaria (GFATM) is one of a number of instruments in our fight
against HIV/AIDS and other diseases of poverty. The GFATM disburses
funds to technically sound proposals, which are submitted through
Country Co-ordinating Mechanisms. Subsequent funding is based
on performance as measured against nationally defined targets.
The UK is a GFATM Board Member. The Board is
responsible for setting GFATM policies and is advised by steering
committees. The UK is a member of the Monitoring and Evaluation
Steering Committee. We are therefore well positioned to influence
how the GFATM measures its performance relative to instruments
to tackle HIV/AIDS and diseases of poverty. We will provide additional
financial resources to the GFATM based on the benchmarks of performance.
POVERTY REDUCTION
STRATEGIES:
5. How does DFID support countries in the
production of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs)? How can capacity
best be built in those countries least able to produce PRSs? How
can DFID promote increased participation with civil society in
the PRS process? Does DFID contribute to the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Trust fund (PRSTF)? What is being done to increase awareness
of the availability of capacity building resources from the Trust
Fund?
How does DFID support countries in the production
of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs)? How can capacity best
be built in those countries least able to produce PRSs? How can
DFID promote increased participation with civil society in the
PRS process?
The majority of DFID offices in countries with
PRSs engage with national PRS processes through support for official
processes (Government participation) and through direct support
for civil society. Some offices also work with national policy
think-tanks and research institutes. Most offices provide capacity-building
support to national and sectoral planning and budgeting activities
linked to the PRS. Strengthening poverty data, poverty analysis,
monitoring and evaluation are also key areas of support. More
detail on DFID support to PRSs is set out in the attached paper,
"DFID's Engagement with National PRSP Processes", prepared
as part of DFID's PRSP Monitoring and Synthesis project (Annex
2). (Not printed, copy placed in the Library.)
Does DFID contribute to the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Trust Fund (PRSTF)? What is being done to increase awareness
of the availability of capacity building resources from the Trust
Fund?
DFID does not contribute to the PRSTF. The main
donors are the Netherlands and Japan, who have contributed a total
of US$20 million. DFID decided that support for capacity building
could best be delivered directly at a country level, through out
bilateral programmes. The PRSTF is managed at a country level,
with grant applications submitted to and approved by the country
government, the World Bank, the United Nations, and the contributing
donors in-country. These representatives are also responsible
for increasing awareness of the availability of these resources,
although DFID country offices can also help in this.
6. How can DFID legitimately influence the
content of PRSs? Are Memoranda of Understanding a mechanism for
setting out what donors would like to see in PRSs? The G8 countries
have committed to prioritising water and sanitation as public
health issues in African countries' PRSs. How will this be done?
Is it possible to influence PRSs to ensure that gender issues
are mainstreamed in them? Given the link between PRSs and DFID's
work in a country, how can DFID ensure that the lack of gender
in a PRS doesn't result in an absence of a gender perspective
in DFID's work in that country?
How can DFID legitimately influence the content
of PRSs? Is it also possible to influence PRSs to ensure that
gender issues are mainstreamed in them? Given the link between
PRSs and DFID's work in a country, how can DFID ensure that the
lack of gender in a PRS doesn't result in an absence of a gender
perspective in DFID's work in that country?
The IMF and World Bank review of the PRSP approach,
published in March 2002, noted that some observers had suggested
the need to set standards for PRSPs. However, the overall response
of governments in PRS countries has been that, in order to maintain
the principle of country ownership, the PRSP process should not
involve global standards or guidelines. instead it is better to
set out a number of good practices that countries can usefully
follow in designing PRSs.
Gender is just one example of a number of issues
where donors might wish to set standards, and bring their own
ideas to the PRS process. In general, the coverage of gender issues
has been good in the education and health sections of PRSs, but
much lower in other sections. The coverage of gender issues has
also tended to decline as countries have moved from diagnosis
of the causes of poverty to actions, and from actions to monitoring.
However, in order for the PRS approach to have credibility, donors
need to subsume their own priorities to those of the national
strategy, and to respect the priorities and strategies developed
through extensive consultation and participation.
Are Memoranda of Understanding a mechanism for
setting out what donors would like to see in Poverty Reduction
Strategies?
DFID and other donors have a continuous dialogue
with development partners about the design, implementation and
monitoring of their Poverty Reduction Strategies. In order to
bring about long-term, pro-poor change and respect country ownership,
DFID has promoted a participatory approach to the development
of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs). DFID attaches as much
importance to improving the PRS process as to issues of content.
Memoranda of Understanding are not principally
a mechanism for setting out what DFID would like to see in Poverty
Reduction Strategies although they do allow for the dialogue on
issues which may not currently be well covered there. They demonstrate:
a high profile commitment to working together to eradicate poverty
over the long term; the establishment of obligations by both sides
with a process for review; a clearer articulation of the responsibilities
of DFID, including greater predictability in the transfer of resources,
and commitments on improving the quality of aid and addressing
policy constraints to development; and the possibility of a more
strategic dialogue on a wide range of issues affecting development.
DFID has now signed three long-term "Memoranda
of Understanding" with African governments which are committed
to eliminating poverty and developing the required capacity to
do so. In addition to the 1999 agreement with Rwanda, since the
G8 Kananaskis Summit DFID has agreed two further such 10-year
partnerships with Ethiopia and Sierra Leone. Similar agreements
are under active consideration in a number of other countries
including Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania.
The G8 countries have committed to prioritising
water and sanitation as public health issues in African countries'
PRSs. How will this be done?
At the Evian Summit, G8 countries agreed a Water
Action Plan that commits them to playing a more active role in
international efforts towards achieving the water and sanitation
targets. The G8 have not committed to prioritising water in Poverty
Reduction Strategies as these Strategies are developed and owned
by individual countries. However, the G8 is committed to assisting,
as a priority, countries that make a political commitment to prioritise
safe drinking water and basic sanitation as part of these strategies.
The G8 countries will do this by assisting partners to develop
comprehensive plans for the integrated management and efficient
use of water resources. The G8 will also assist countries to establish
clear objectives and, where appropriate, in the development and
evaluation of performance indicators.
DFID is supporting the EU Water Initiative which
assists countries to develop Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks
through PRSs and sector plans which define country-by-country
financing needs in order to achieve water and sanitation goals.
7. Are annual progress reports from countries
sufficient to measure progress against PRS objectives? Does this
reporting system diagnose reasons for underperformance? What happens
in cases where the PRS compact between citizens and state breaks
down?
It is important that the reporting process on
PRS implementation does not place an unnecessary burden on countries.
This is why it was agreed to move from six-monthly to annual reports.
In line with the principle of country ownership, there is no fixed
format for the annual progress reports from countries, and therefore
the scope of the reports varies country by country. However, World
Bank and IMF staff also undertake an assessment of the progress
report which does discuss reasons for underperformance. More details
on monitoring PRS progress, and the issues around civil society
participation are available in the attached papers, "Reporting
and Monitoring: Post Full PRSP Challenges" (Annex 3) and
"Assessing Participation in PRSs in Sub-Saharan Africa"
(Annex 4). (Not printed. Copies placed in the Library.)
DEBT RELIEF:
8. The Departmental Report notes that 11
HIPC countries with unsustainable debt burdens have yet to qualify
for debt relief because of conflict or poor governance (Departmental
Report 2003 Box 2e, page 25). How is debt relief being addressed
in these poorly performing countries?
As noted in the Departmental Report, the main
obstacle to further progress in HIPC countries qualifying for
debt relief is conflict, although serious governance concerns
are also an issue, eg in Myanmar and Togo. The UK believes that
it is important for countries to emerge from conflict and address
these serious governance concerns before debt relief is given.
Otherwise, the resources released through debt relief could prolong
conflicts and would be unlikely to be used for poverty reduction.
Nevertheless, the UK has been providing technical
assistance to most of these countries through the HIPC Capacity
Building project. This is a multi-donor funded project that provides
technical advice and support to countries to strengthen their
debt management offices and help them prepare for the HIPC process.
This includes help in reconciling their debt records, training
to help prepare for Paris Club negotiations and strengthening
their capacity to undertake debt sustainability analysis. This
project can potentially supply assistance to any HIPC country
that requests support. So far, the project has provided advice
and support to Sudan, DR Congo, Congo Republic, Comoros, Togo,
Cote d'Ivoire, Central African Republic, and Burundi.
Furthermore, in December 2001, the Chancellor
announced that the UK would not profit from the debts of these
countries and that any repayments received would be "held
in trust" and, returned to these countries once they qualify
for relief.
DIRECT BUDGET
SUPPORT
9. Is the annual progress report on PRSs
that recipient countries make used as a mechanism to monitor the
impact of Direct Budget Support?
No. This is desirable but presently PRS monitoring
systems in developing countries are too weak to use for this purpose.
We are working with developing countries on strengthening the
monitoring systems.
AGRICULTURE:
10. How effective has the DFID strategy—of
creating an enabling environment for agriculture to flourish—been
to date? In the light of the continuing chronic food crisis in
The Horn and southern Africa, does DFID plan to modify its country
programmes to boost local food production? If not, is the alternative
one of food aid for the foreseeable future? Would support for
local food production in the interests of food security be more
cost-effective than supplying food aid?
DFID's approach to agricultural development
is based on creating the right enabling (policy) conditions for
agriculture and rural economies to flourish. It recognises the
need to address constraints that lie outside the sector that affect
investment, opportunities and economic development more broadly,
for example transport and financial systems. We support development
of new agricultural technology through international and national
agricultural research. All of this requires long-term engagement
with developing countries and international partners.
In Asia and Latin America there has been a 40%
rise in agricultural productivity since the 1980's. technology
has played a part (witness the green revolution) but an important
factor has been the policy environments created for farmers and
the increased demand generated by overall economic development.
India's policies have generated considerable agricultural surpluses.
Agriculture is booming around fast-developing cities such as Hanoi.
Sub-Saharan Africa, however, has been far less
successful. Overall productivity has stagnated over the same period.
Agriculture has recovered well in Uganda and Mozambique, and elsewhere
in eastern Africa export agriculture has flourished. But much
effort and investment have been ineffective owing to poor governance,
poor public sector performance, declining terms of trade for agriculture
commodities, HIV/AIDS and conflict.
DFID will agree future country assistance plans
in the Horn and Southern Africa with national governments according
to the priorities in their poverty reduction strategies. We will
aim to complement the activities of other donors. These efforts
will be supported by a new regional strategy for Southern Africa
to target vulnerability and hunger. Country assistance plans include
measures to improve agricultural production and reduce vulnerability.
For example in Zambia design of a new DFID programme to promote
agricultural development responds to emerging poverty reduction
strategy priorities.
There are some cases where direct support for
increasing local food production is an appropriate part of a longer-term
strategy. This is particularly so for poor people who depend on
subsistence agriculture and who have no other livelihood options.
The DFID supported "starter packs" of seed and fertiliser
in Malawi produced US $10 million of food for a $2 million investment
in one winter season alone. However, this approach is less effective
in the case of AIDS affected families. And it may not help much
in situations, such as urban areas, where the ability to buy food
is the main issue rather than food supply.
The alternative to addressing the underlying
causes of food insecurity and vulnerability is inevitably long-term
dependence on food aid. DFID believes this is less cost-effective
in the longer-run. Where continued humanitarian relief and recovery
operations are necessary we will, where appropriate, support efforts
to boost local food production. But insufficient local food production
is only one part of this complex situation and often a symptom
rather than a primary cause of rural vulnerability.
11. Given DFID's shift towards the support
of governments via Poverty Reduction Strategies and its acknowledgement
of the importance of agriculture in promoting people's livelihoods,
how, in the period covered by this Departmental Report, has DFID
assisted stakeholders to think through the role of agriculture
within the Poverty Reduction Strategy process and how far has
this been reflected in these strategies, especially within sub-Saharan
Africa?
DFID country offices in Africa have supported
agriculture in poverty reduction strategies (PRS) through: participation
in working groups-financing of policy papers and supporting the
wider PRS process and donor co-ordination.
DFID's Africa Policy Department provided policy
support on wider issues specific to Africa, drawing on the international
and African development and research community.
At the central level, DFID created an agricultural
policy team to work on broader agriculture development, trade
and investment issues. The team will develop and feed practical
ideas to those working on PRS papers (PRSPs).
DFID staff have also been working through multilateral
institutions and international processes linked to PRSPs. There
was close collaboration with the European Commission and World
Bank on development of their rural development policies, and on
the Bank's work on PRSPs. DFID's issues paper "Better livelihoods
for poor people: The Role of Agriculture" was launched at
WSSD and has been well received by the international community.
How far has this been reflected in these strategies,
especially within Sub-Saharan Africa?
Agriculture has regained high profile in African
PRSPs. However, in many cases strong statements about the importance
of agriculture to growth and poverty reduction are not yet followed
up with coherent plans and policy reforms linking agriculture,
infrastructure, trade and rural development.
PRSPs are part of a long-term process. They
are continually evolving. PRSPs are making major contribution
to raising the profile of agriculture and stimulating new thinking
about how to encourage agricultural development and more effectively
use development assistance.
12. In Ethiopia, how much of the £32
million provided directly, and how much of the 20% of the EC contribution
allocated to tackle the underlying causes of food-security and
reduce vulnerability to drought has been spent on the long-term
development of agriculture in the period covered by this DFID
Departmental Report? (Reference paragraph 2.26 of DFID's 2003
Report)
None of the £32 million UK money referred
to in paragraph 2.26 is for long-term activities—it was
all for immediate humanitarian aid. It is not possible to attribute
specific EU activities to our 20% contribution to the overall
EU programme, we cannot say what amount we (or any other member
state) gave was used for food security.
However, Promoting long-term food security is
a key theme of our bilateral Ethiopia programme. For example,
we finance pastoralist development initiatives and rural road
expansion to reduce the vulnerability of people in remote areas.
And we are co-supporting large World Bank and European Commission
food security programmes.
13. How has DFID set about implementing the
approach to improving people's livelihoods set out in "Better
Livelihoods for Poor People: The Role of Agriculture", referred
to in this Departmental Review in paragraph 3.36?
DFID is implementing this approach at several
levels:
— Country teams are working with PRS
processes and domestic policy formation, to create a policy environment
where agriculture contributes to better livelihoods for poor rural
people and poor urban consumers. We are also assisting developing
countries to position themselves more effectively in relation
to international markets; to meet the standards required to succeed
in those markets; and to manage the implications of trade liberalisation,
which may be negative as well as positive.
— We are striving to improve the quality
of aid and aid instruments, such as general budget support.
— DFID work to strengthen civil society
so that organisations genuinely representing the poor, including
farmers' organisations, can engage on more equal terms with service
providers, market chains and policy and institutional reform processes.
— Through the Agriculture team within
our restructured Policy Division we will continue to work with
others to identify practical steps to improving agriculture's
performance, which can be plausibly introduced into broader growth
and poverty strategies.
— We are working closely with other
Whitehall departments (notably DEFRA and DTI) to improve coherence
of domestic agricultural and trade policies. This includes reform
of the Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries policies and delivery
of our Doha commitments, in which agriculture figures prominently.
14. Does DFID intend to upgrade its current
"Issues" paper on agriculture to become a full strategy?
If not, why not?
The paper "Better livelihoods for poor
people: The role of agriculture" sets out DFID's approach
and commitment to agriculture, particularly the need to see it
in a broad context requiring action at developing country, international
and domestic levels. The paper has established the continuing
importance of agriculture for poor people and for poverty reduction.
DFID does not intend to produce an agricultural "strategy
paper" however.
Agriculture is largely a private sector activity
defined and managed in very different contexts. Its potential
and the objectives for its development vary considerably in different
places. The role of donors is also very different in high and
low aid dependency countries. In each context, DFID seeks to support
countries own priorities and complement the activities of other
donors, rather that have separate donor plans. Gaps for assistance
may or may not lie in agriculture interventions. An overarching
strategy would not add value. This is the approach we are taking
towards bilateral priorities and expenditure in all sectors.
SEXUAL AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
15. In some cases sexual and reproductive
health has lost out because of Health Sector Reform. How can DFID
ensure that Governments whose budgets it supports directly maintain
an emphasis on sexual and reproductive health?
Where possible we seek to strengthen partner
government health systems, as an effective and sustainable way
of improving poor people's health. We work with partners to increase
access by poor people to good quality reproductive and sexual
health care and services, including those focussed on improving
maternal health outcomes, providing contraceptive choice and ensuring
availability of condoms, and preventing and treating sexually
transmitted infections. In many circumstances DFID is also continuing
to ring-fence support for reproductive health and HIV/AIDS work,
including for example social marketing programmes of reproductive
health commodities.
GENDER
16. There seems to be universal agreement
that educating girls is a success story. Paragraph 3.44 of your
Report states that "research has shown that investing in
education for girls is one of the most effective ways of reducing
poverty". This is a comment which we have heard frequently
from sources around the world. If the outcome of such an approach
are so universally seen as positive why doesn't DFID take the
plunge and make this the major intervention in tackling poverty?
There is substantial evidence to show that investing
in girls' education results in a large number of broad development
gains. Educated girls are more likely to:
— delay the age of first marriage and
have smaller, healthier families;
— ensure that their own children, and
particularly girls, go to school;
— have expanded economic opportunities;
— have longer, healthier lives.
In spite of this, almost two thirds of the 115
million children currently out of school are girls.
DFID policies and programmes reflect our strong
commitment to girls' education as a key determinant of poverty
reduction. They emphasise that ensuring equitable access to education
must take place at the same time as other broad-based development
strategies aimed at empowering women across all areas of development.
DFID supports national governments to ensure that equitable access
to education, and women's empowerment more broadly, is placed
within a broader, pro-poor development agenda.
Since 1997, DFID has committed over £700
million to basic education. Between 2002 and 2007 we expect to
spend a further £1.3 billion on the achievement of gender
equity and universal primary education. It is not possible to
disaggregate how much of this will be specifically channelled
to working with national governments on girls' education. On the
one hand, this is because DFID increasingly commits resources
to overall sector or national budgets based on an agreed development
framework. On the other, it is because in our work with national
governments to ensure that Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs),
national budgets, and education sector strategic plans prioritise
getting girls and boys into school, we emphasise the need to mainstream
gender equity concerns.
However, recognising the need to take immediate
action to redress current gender inequities, DFID also works at
a national level with a wide range of partners to develop and
implement specific strategies to eliminate the barriers to girls'
educational participation (school fees, negative gender stereotypes,
school facilities and materials that are not "girl friendly",
etc).
At an international level DFID is collaborating
with a variety of partners to accelerate progress on girls' education.
We are supporting UNICEF in their mandate to coordinate girls'
education to ensure stronger collaboration and coordination among
donors at the global and the national level. We are working with
the World Bank and UNICEF to develop sustainable strategies for
girls' education in a number of countries and we are working closely
with the Global Monitoring Report to develop the 2003 Report which
will focus on the theme of gender equity.
25 June 2003
Annex 1
Note to External Partners on the Reorganisation
of Policy Division
INTRODUCTION
1. With effect from 31 March 2003, the Department
for International Development (DFID) has reorganised its central
policy departments into a new Policy Division based at its London
headquarters. DFID works with a wide variety of partners in pursuit
of its objective of eliminating poverty. These partners include
other UK government departments; governments in partner countries;
international institutions; other bilateral development organisations;
NGOs and many other organisations in civil society, both in the
UK and overseas. DFID places high value on these relationships
and regards them as crucial to the achievement of its mission.
2. The purpose of this note is therefore
to explain to DFID's national international development partners—and
to other parts of the UK Government—the background to this
reorganisation and some of its key implications.
BACKGROUND
3. The role of the new Policy Division is
to develop evidence-based, innovative approaches to development
that can make a real difference to poor people. The objectives
of the reorganisation are to enable Policy Division to:
— be more responsive to global and
country needs, opportunities and events in the development field;
— focus on those priority areas that
are likely to have the most impact on poor people; and
— be better placed to develop effective
partnerships with other UK government departments, developing
country governments and other international development organisations.
LEADERSHIP OF
POLICY DIVISION
4. Sharon White is the Director of Policy
Division. Sharon reports to the Director General, Policy and International,
Masood Ahmed. Sharon is supported by three Deputy Directors: Marshall
Elliot; Susanna Moorehead and Michael Schultz.
POLICY DIVISION
ORGANISATION
5. DFID's central policy departments were
previously organised on the basis of subject or sectoral themes,
(such as economics, social development and health). The policy
development work of Policy Division will in future be carried
out through a set of multi-disciplinary teams. A list of the teams
and their leaders as at 11 May is attached. The core membership
of these teams is drawn from the staff of Policy Division. In
addition, these teams will draw on inputs from other parts of
DFID (including country offices) and from outside agencies, including
other development organisations and Whitehall departments.
6. All teams will focus on producing outputs
that can be put to practical use in the field of poverty reduction.
Over time, teams will complete their tasks and their staff will
be reallocated to other priorities. Similarly, new teams will
be formed as required to meet emerging needs or to tackle new
issues.
7. The work of most teams is self explanatory
but it may be helpful to say a little more about some of the teams:
— teams under the heading of scoping
work will explore potential new areas of policy development to
see what opportunities may exist for DFID to add value by developing
policy in new fields. At the end of the scoping phase, a decision
will be taken whether to set up a fully-resourced policy team;
— the programme management unit will
manage and review programme spending in those areas of policy
where Policy Division has existing commitments;
— the rapid response unit will provide
expert advice on areas not covered by teams, as well as responding
to short-term demands for policy work and advice.
8. There is also a central research team
which will administer the current research portfolio and will
design and implement a new strategy that will integrate the different
research programmes into a "one stop shop" for research
in support of DFID's wider objectives.
9. DFID's Chief Advisers and Heads of Profession
will be located in the Office a Chief Advisers within Policy Division.
The Office of Chief Advisers will have a small support staff and
will also draw on the resources of the rest of Policy Division
as required. Chief Advisers and Heads of Profession will play
an advisory role in the setting up of new teams with the right
membership and terms of reference and in providing expert input
and quality control to the work of policy teams. Most Heads of
Profession will lead or be members of particular policy teams.
10. Chief Advisers and Heads of Profession
will continue to play a key role in the maintaining and developing
and professional capacity of staff in their particular professional
domains. Freed up from their previous roles as departmental managers,
Chief Advisers will devote more time to providing expert advice
across DFID; to representing DFID in various international fora;
and to ensuring that DFID is kept fully up to date with latest
thinking in the development field.
11. An organogram of the new Policy Division
is available on the DFID website.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
EXTERNAL PARTNERS
12. One of the key themes of the reorganisation
of Policy Division is a greater focus on priority areas for policy
development and on key areas where DFID wishes to influence the
international development agenda. In deciding where to allocate
its policy development resources, DFID will in future consider
a number of questions, including:
— is there clear evidence of demand
for new policy in this area?
— is this topic important—will
it help achieve one or more of the Millennium Development Goals?
— is the best next step on this topic
to form a team to develop new policy, or is some other intervention
more appropriate?
— does DFID have distinctive competences
and/or some other comparative advantage that makes it right for
DFID, rather than another development organisation, to develop
new policy here?
— is policy best developed by DFID,
or could policy be developed more effectively by outsourcing or
by a secondment to another development organisation?
13. This sharper focus on priorities for
policy development may mean that many topics that are of importance
to some of DFID's development partners will not be covered at
any one time by a policy team. And in some areas, there may be
a managed wind-down of Policy Division's involvement. But it should
not be inferred from this that DFID has lost interest in such
topics, or that we no longer regard them as important. In some
important areas of policy, for example, the priority may now be
to implement existing policy more widely and effectively through
our country offices rather than to develop new policy.
14. The reorganisation of Policy Division
should also open up new opportunities for other development organisations
to make an input to policy development in DFID. If your organisation
is potentially interested in participating in some way in one
or more of the policy teams, please contact the relevant team
leader in the first instance.
CONTACTING POLICY
DIVISION
15. A list of teams and their leaders is
set out below. This may have changed since the original submission
of written evidence.
16. If you have any other more general questions
on the reorganisation of Policy Division, please contact the Public
Enquiry Point in the first instance at: enquiry@dfid.gov.uk. Please
put "PD Enquiry" in subject field.
17. Information about the reorganisation
currently held on the DFID website (www.dfid.gov.uk) will be regularly
updated, so please visit again.
| Team | Team Leader
|
| Policy Division Management | Sharon White
|
| Access to Medicines | Emma Back
|
| Aid Effectiveness* | Andrew Keith
|
| Cabinet | Richard Tilbrook |
| Central Research Team | Paul Spray
|
| Conflict** | Tom Owen-Edmunds
|
| Corruption | Phil Mason |
| Drivers of Change | Barbara Hendrie
|
| Education for All | Yusuf Sayed
|
| Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)
| Simon Ray |
| Global Health Initiatives and Partnerships |
Alastair Robb |
| Global and Local Environment | Linda Brown
|
| Growth Hub | Christian Rogg
|
| —Agriculture | Tim Foy
|
| —Financial Systems | Richard Boulter
|
| —Investment/Competition/BDS | Roger Nellist
|
| HIV/AIDS | Robin Gorna |
| Human Capital/skills | David Levesque
|
| Millennium Development Goals (including hard to reach)
| Fiona Lappin |
| Macroeconomic Scenarios | Tom Crowards
|
| Migration | Martin Surr |
| Office of Chief Advisers |
|
| Poor Performers | Michael Anderson
|
| Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) |
Catherine Porter |
| Programme Management Unit (Financial/Policy)
| John Moye |
| Public Financial Management | Simon Gill
|
| Rapid Response Unit | Louise Thomas
|
| Reaching the very poorest | Donal Brown
|
| Service Delivery | Malayah Harper
|
| Urban and Rural Change | Jim Harvey
|
| |
*Work on Aid Effectiveness is led by the Performance and
Effectiveness Department, contact Roland Fox.
**Work on Conflict is lead by the Conflict and Humanitarian
Affairs Department.
| 
