6 Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
recommend that the financial tables in Annex 1 of Departmental
Reports include a breakdown of ODA figures, so that readers can
easily identify which components of ODA — contributions
from CDC, debt relief, the DFID budget — are changing. With
regard to debt relief, we recommend that relief only on the amount
being paid in debt servicing can reasonably be classed as ODA,
and that the UK Government should give a detailed breakdown of
this amount when apportioning debt relief to the ODA total. (Paragraph
12)
2. We encourage HM
Treasury to make overall administration costs — rather than
staff headcount — the focus of DFID's efficiency savings.
This will help ensure that DFID has the necessary human resources
to support the Department's increasing financial resources. (Paragraph
14)
3. We recommend that
information is made available in the Comprehensive Spending Review
2007 on exactly how DFID intends to specialise further beyond
its focus on low-income countries, how it plans to divert activities
from non-core to core activities and what cost savings can be
generated through off-shoring and outsourcing of activities. (Paragraph
19)
4. Millennium Development
Goal 8 seeks to build "a global partnership for development",
and towards this goal donors should participate in a coherent
process when co-ordinating countries of operation. DFID has not
fully made the case for its comparative advantage in focusing
on fragile states such as the Democratic Republic of Congo. We
expect a clear explanation of why DFID is investing considerable
resources in DRC. (Paragraph 24)
5. We welcome DFID's
commitment to work in fragile states. However, in order to maximise
poverty reduction and retain public support, we encourage DFID
to make information available on exactly how it intends to balance
good performers and fragile states while at the same time increasing
its specialisation and focusing on what it deems to be "core"
activities. (Paragraph 27)
6. We recommend that
when it reviews the proportion of spending channelled through
multilateral institutions for the Comprehensive Spending Review
2007, DFID makes information available on how it allocates its
funding across such institutions. We also recommend that, when
publishing this information, DFID makes clear how the Department
assesses multilateral institutions using the Multilateral Effectiveness
Framework (MEF) and how the MEF influences its funding decisions.
(Paragraph 34)
7. We were pleased
to hear that Ethiopia's Protection of Basic Services Grant provides
for regular financial monitoring, including the provision of detailed
budgetary information to citizens for the first time. However,
we recommend that these monitoring arrangements — particularly
making detailed budgetary information available to citizens —
are extended to all PRBS arrangements to enable improved transparency
and accountability. We plan to visit Ethiopia early in 2007 as
part of our Water and Sanitation inquiry and will follow up on
these points during the visit. (Paragraph 45)
8. We recommend that
DFID examines the long-term viability of budgetary support before
it is introduced in order to reduce the likelihood of withdrawal
and that it includes political governance where appropriate in
the criteria for PRBS. We also recommend that DFID considers immediate
follow-up measures to assist countries in getting back on track,
puts contingency plans in place prior to PRBS being withdrawn
and builds NGOs' capacity to track the effectiveness of PRBS.
(Paragraph 47)
9. We agree with DFID's
emphasis on ensuring the predictability of aid flows, improving
public financial management and addressing the effectiveness of
sector institutions. We recommend that DFID carefully monitors
emerging lessons from the experience of the International Finance
Facility for Immunisation about the potential value of front-loading
aid in certain circumstances, and how this can be balanced with
concerns about absorptive capacity. (Paragraph 54)
10. We recommend that
DFID continues to monitor the impact of relocation of staff to
East Kilbride. We also recommend that DFID shows in its Comprehensive
Review 2007 how future shifts in policy impact on future recruitment
patterns and training. In addition, it would be useful to show
how resources — human and financial — align with Public
Service Agreement targets. (Paragraph 57)
11. We are pleased
that DFID is liaising with the FCO on how to co-ordinate more
effectively to save money for the taxpayer by sharing services.
We recommend that the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 contains
specific proposals on this. (Paragraph 60)
12. We recommend that
future Departmental Reports give specific examples of how DFID
seeks to achieve PSA targets. We also recommend that DFID provides
evidence of corrective or remedial action it is taking in instances
where PSA targets are not going to be met. (Paragraph 64)
13. We are pleased
to see that DFID is reviewing its evaluation system. We believe
that external scrutiny of projects is important and that there
is scope for having a greater element of external scrutiny than
at present. We expect DFID to report on steps it is taking to
improve scrutiny in its next Departmental Report. (Paragraph 67)
14. We recommend that
DFID carries out a full analysis of how its technical assistance
can maximise local capacity development, participation and impact
on poverty. Furthermore, we recommend that DFID outlines the process
by which it evaluates external technical consultants and sets
out the proportion of funds spent on consultancy fees in its Departmental
Reports. (Paragraph 69)
15. We recommend that
DFID ensures that key staff in posts such as Mozambique and DRC
have a level of language skill equal to that which the FCO would
expect to have in post. This requirement will have implications
for assessing what duration of staff posting is cost-efficient.
We look forward to hearing the outcome of the Permanent Secretary's
discussions with his Treasury colleagues concerning language training
for DFID staff. (Paragraph 75)
16. We recommend that
DFID engages with other donors to identify and pursue matters
of interest regarding China's operations in Africa. A pragmatic
approach would be to focus on the mutual interest in commerce
as a way in to dialogue with China on governance issues in Africa.
(Paragraph 77)
17. We are concerned
that the Departmental Report fails to set out concrete and time-bound
policies for meeting the first failed MDG target seeking gender
equality in primary education. We are also disappointed at progress
on gender mainstreaming within DFID. We expect to see detailed
policies relating to both these areas in DFID's forthcoming Gender
Action Plan. (Paragraph 80)
18. We were disappointed
with the outcome of the Hong Kong Ministerial and more so with
the decision in July to postpone indefinitely the Doha Round.
The UK Government has not met the 2005 target that it set for
itself despite its efforts in this regard. In the light of the
suspension of the Doha Round the Government should revise this
target and, in the first instance, work towards ensuring that
its partners in the EU share the same objectives in relation to
developing countries in the event that the Doha Round is restarted.
(Paragraph 83)
19. The UK Government
has said that it supports the conclusions of the European Council
which called for Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs) to be
conducted at an appropriate time. We agree with this conclusion
but remain concerned that a comprehensive and effective Review
cannot be undertaken until potential developmental impacts are
known. It would be irresponsible of the EU not to meet the ongoing
concerns of the Africa Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states
about the lack of a development perspective in the Economic Partnership
Agreements (EPAs). The EU should not wait until the last minute
to do so. Measures must be put in place now, as part of the Review
process. If concerns about the lack of a development perspective
are not met, the EU must be prepared to think about, and discuss
openly, alternatives to the EPAs. (Paragraph 90)
| 
