Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for International Development
1. BACKGROUND
In its Evidence Session of 21 March, Committee
Members requested additional information from DFID as follows:
(a) timetable and process for appointing
the Chief Executive for the Investment Climate Facility for Africa;
(b) information on the impact of DFID's private
sector infrastructure programmes; and
(c) details of DFID's work at the country
level on property rights.
2. INVESTMENT
CLIMATE FACILITY
FOR AFRICA
(ICF): APPOINTMENT OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
The ICF Trustee meeting on 20 March focused
on the agenda for securing investors and for arranging for investors
to be appointed to the Board. Although not specifically on the
meeting's tabled agenda, this meeting also discussed and agreed
a process for recruitment and appointment of a Chief Executive
Officer (CEO). A selection sub-committee of the Board was set
up to oversee this appointment process.
As at 12 May, an executive search consultancy
has been appointed to lead on this process. Specifications for
the CEO have been agreed and the search process has commenced.
An initial "long-list" of names has been provided by
the recruitment consultants, which has now been reduced to a shorter
long-list for discussion by the selection sub-committee, with
the aim of reaching a final short-list by the next Board Meeting
on 1 June. Candidates will be interviewed and selection made during
June, with a target of having an appointment in place within three
months of selection. This is a very tight schedule.
The ICF Board considers this appointment as
very important for the future of the ICF. However, all recognise
that it is not an easy task to find the right, high-profile, preferably
bi-lingual, individual with both public and private sector experience,
who is well networked in Africa and is passionate and knowledgeable
on investment climate issues. The Board is also aware that until
a suitable CEO is recruited and in post, much of the role expected
of the CEO will have to be jointly shouldered by the Trustees
and the Executive Secretariat. Currently, HE Benjamin Mkapa and
Dr Ken Kwaku (consultant to the ICF secretariat) are handling
the key networking and promotional roles with African leaders
and African institutions.
3. IMPACT OF
DFID'S PRIVATE
SECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE
(PSI) PROGRAMME
The objective of this programme is to secure
increased private sector participation in infrastructure in developing
countries for economic growth and poverty alleviation. Three main
problems are being addressed by this PSI programme: the poor enabling
environment including the limited capacities of the public and
private sectors to deliver infrastructure services for the poor;
the difficulties, risks and costs associated with infrastructure
project development; and the shortage of suitable finance.
DFID plays a leading role in 13 multi donor
facilities that tackle these three problem areas. Annex 1 summarises
in more detail aspects of the programme and its impact on development.
As an example, the programme has levered in some US$1.5 billion
private investment. This represented a donor/private sector leverage
rate of 1:10 ie for every one dollar of donor money spent the
private sector has invested 10 dollars in infrastructure.
Annex 1 also refers to targets on investment
in energy and water services, which will have an impact access
at household level. Several of the private sector infrastructure
facilities are still quite new and, when in full implementation,
impact on poverty reduction will come through both direct programme
efforts and through demonstration effects.
4. DFID COUNTRY
PROGRAMMES ON
PROPERTY RIGHTS
DFID maintains a variety of country, global
and thematic programmes involved directly or indirectly in strengthening
property rights, and also supports global initiatives that help
property rights reform. In some countries (Rwanda, South Africa,
Tanzania), DFID is a lead donor. In many others, DFID is working
closely with other donors. Annex 2 provides details of DFID's
work in the area of property rights in 16 countries, in addition
to references to regional or thematic work.
DFID response reflects country context and demand:
developing reform proposals direct with government (Kenya); working
simultaneously at different levels (Access to Justice including
on property rights, and on land records, in Pakistan); and maintaining
a watching brief through donor co-ordination forums (Uganda).
DFID can respond strategically at critical stages
of country land policy reforms, and will continue to do so. DFID
has just approved a land reform assistance programme in the highly
political environment around this issue in South Africa. In Mozambique,
DFID recently approved support for helping people and civil society
groups to establish their rights under Mozambique's progressive
new land legislation.
DFID expertise comes internally from its different
groups of advisers applying technical expertise and political
and institutional understanding, and externally from working with
partners including UN agencies, other donors, and international
and local experts. In Ghana, with regard to Hernando de Soto's
idea for a $2 million pilot project on land titling in Accra,
land policy experts in the land sector agencies, academic institutions,
and NGOs do not agree that that this proposed intervention is
appropriate, as the latter is an example where a potentially simplistic
solution to complex land issues is unhelpful.
The challenge facing DFID and its partners is
that "property rights" and security of land tenure require
both broad political consensus for reform, alongside many of the
wider governance reforms needed to create effective states. The
context varies so much, such as in Rwanda where DFID's lack of
colonial baggage is perceived as an advantage, and in Ghana where
DFID has brought in specific expertise from other African countries.
Given existing institutional and capacity constraints in many
of DFID partner countries, and the complexity of the political
and technical factors involved, the current diversified approach
to meeting country needs on property rights reform seems broadly
correct. We will do more in contexts where partner Governments
emphasise that this is an area where they welcome donor assistance,
and where they are committed to support change.
| 
