Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-43)
MR ANTONIO
TUJAN JR
AND MR
HOWARD WHITE
29 APRIL 2008
Q40 Ann McKechin: Coming back to
the issue which Linda Doull raised: in somewhere like the DRC
about the issue of user fees, her argument was that the UK was
the best way to deliver quality of aid without user fees but the
government wanted to use user fees. There is this issue about
consultation and I found it very helpful, Mr White, how you set
that out. Donors should try and reach some agreement along with
recipients about what levels of intervention would be appropriate
in different states. It will be different in the Philippines to
how it is in the DRC, for example. Donors expect much greater
engagement in the Philippines than somewhere in the DRC where
actually getting aid on the ground quickly where people are in
very dire straits is obviously the first priority. Is there a
need, as well as discussion about quality of aid on the one hand
and ownership on the other, that there is some understanding about
how that interacts in different types of countries in different
sorts of situations?
Mr Tujan: Ownership is operational.
It is also a process of development and therefore in any country
you have different modalities and circumstances. You have different
targets at a given time. There are general principles and I would
agree that in certain countries the mechanisms for engagement
with civil society do not yet exist, so they have to be built.
They cannot be artificially created. The important thing is that
if it is in the framework of the relationship then it makes for
a sustainable development process.
Q41 John Battle: In the previous
session, Sarah Mulley from the UK Aid Network was particularly
good at insisting that ownership is about government but also
about civil society, and it is the relationship between the two.
I just wondered if you could say a little bit about what DFID
could do to support a broader understanding of democratic ownership
that involves governments but also parliaments and civil society
which we have tended to neglect for the last 60 years.
Mr Tujan: First of all, DFID is
not in the forefront, as you would expect, on this issue. DFID
is one of the more progressive donors but in reality you have
the Nordic donors. DFID is the plus in the Nordic plus, but it
is not taking more action and that is, for me, quite interesting
because I would have expected DFID to become involved. Second,
on the question of democratic ownership, DFID generally finds
it easier to relate to UK NGOs and that is understandable. When
DFID starts working, let us say, in Zambia on how it could strengthen
the NGOs there, it utilises Oxfam to do the programme and so on
instead of going straight to interacting with Zambian CSOs. That
experience goes around. Actually, there is a bit of resistance
that we notice in terms of engaging with southern civil societies.
There was discussion in the earlier session about would DFID work
with UK NGOs in developing greater democratic processes in the
recipient countries. The greater challenge is working with the
southern CSOs and there is an awful lot of room to do that.
Mr White: When you look at the
way the ownership agenda has been treated and things like PRSPs
specifically which are meant to be a manifestation of the new
move towards broad consultation, the glaring gap is parliamentarians
and politicians at all levels.
Q42 Chairman: That is a particularly
interesting comment. Hugh Bayley is Chair for the Westminster
Foundation. The Committee frequently discusses this but you are
saying it was interesting but disappointing that DFID was not
doing more on that front. I infer that from what you said.
Mr Tujan: Yes. There are official
consultations that are ongoing to prepare for Accra. I attended
on behalf of the round table six on civil society the consultation
in Bangkok. DFID was not there, so it is quite interesting.
Q43 Chairman: They have just closed
their office in Bangkok. When we visit a country we occasionally
meet local civil society or NGO partnerships but nevertheless
you think they are not enough engaged in that dimension. They
are not doing enough.
Mr Tujan: Interestingly this year,
there is an increase of engagement towards developing and mobilising
different stakeholders towards aid architecture. For example,
the Development Cooperation Forum which is going to happen in
July is organising a meeting of parliamentarians in Rome in June.
The idea precisely is that civil society, parliamentarians and
all other stakeholders come on board on the issue because the
question of democratic ownership in the end is not just a matter
to be studied. It is also a question of how it is made more effective
through support from the donors.
Chairman: Thank you very much for your
evidence. As a Committee we are very conscious of the fact that
there are a lot of different facets of development that need to
be coordinated but nevertheless some better coordination is required
if aid is to be effectively delivered, so I just hope we can add
something constructive to that debate. Thank you very much for
helping us with that.
| 
