Recommendations
1. We
very much welcome the increase in DFID's budget over the Comprehensive
Spending Review period 2008-11 as a significant step towards the
target of 0.7% of Gross National Income being allocated to development
assistance by 2013. However, we intend to monitor closely the
extent to which this increase in Official Development Assistance
is accounted for by real terms increases in DFID's budget and
how much comes from non-DFID ODA streams, particularly debt relief.
(Paragraph 7)
2. We
welcome DFID's increased research budget but are disappointed
that the Department has not been able to give us specific examples
of its research directly influencing policy decisions. International
development is a rapidly changing field where there will always
be competing priorities for funding. It is vital for DFID's effectiveness
that it bases its funding decisions on evidence rather than simply
responding to the latest trend. We hope that the new Research
Strategy which is currently being drawn up will focus on providing
an empirical base for the whole of DFID's work. (Paragraph 10)
3. The
merits of establishing a process for sharpening DFID's focus on
results are clear. But when we questioned DFID about this issue,
the form the process would take remained rather vague. We look
forward to seeing the fully worked up Results Action Plan and
expect it to represent a real step forward in DFID's ability to
assess its own effectiveness. (Paragraph 11)
4. We
welcome the establishment of the Independent Advisory Committee
on Development Impact. We plan to invite its Chair to give formal
evidence at an early stage to enable us to understand more about
how it will operate and what the focus of its work will be in
its first year. (Paragraph 13)
5. It
is apparent from the example of funding allocated for children
affected by AIDS that DFID cannot always effectively track its
expenditure nor provide a guarantee that it has reached its intended
recipients. We understand the problems presented when funding
is channelled through multilateral agencies but it is unacceptable
that DFID cannot demonstrate that dedicated funding targeted at
a particular vulnerable group has benefited those for whom it
has been allocated. We expect DFID to report back to us, in response
to this report, on how it has changed the mechanisms it uses to
track project expenditure to ensure funding reaches the intended
beneficiaries. (Paragraph 15)
6. We
welcome the new Delivery Agreement for Public Service Agreement
29 which makes the assessment of DFID's performance more meaningful
by seeking to identify more accurately DFID's contribution to
progress towards aspects of the Millennium Development Goals.
We intend to monitor this over the course of the Comprehensive
Spending Review period and to examine how the new Delivery Agreement
feeds through into future Annual Reports and Autumn Performance
Reports. We also intend to examine the rationale of and performance
against the indicators underlying DFID's Departmental Strategic
Objectives. (Paragraph 21)
7. We
support DFID's underlying aim of focusing resources on the poorest
people. We accept that urbanisation is a factor which DFID needs
to consider in allocating resources but 75% of those living in
poverty are in rural areas and this figure is higher in the poorest
countries. We are concerned that funding agricultural development
has "gone out of fashion" and that DFID has moved its
focus to other sectors. We believe that improving the economic
return on agriculture remains intrinsic to reducing rural poverty
levels, which in turn is necessary to meet the Millennium Development
Goal of tackling overall poverty levels. DFID needs to recognise
this in its funding allocations, in the priorities it sets in
its Country Assistance Programmes and in the agreements in reaches
with recipients of budget support for priorities in allocating
those funds. (Paragraph 28)
8. We
are encouraged to see from DFID's consultation on its Research
Strategy 2008-13 that one of its four priority areas will be sustainable
agriculture, especially in Africa. We hope this signals a reprioritising
of agricultural research which has the demonstrated potential
to bring tangible benefits to poor farmers in developing countries.
(Paragraph 31)
9. We
accept that DFID cannot be exempt from efficiency targets set
for the whole of Government. The Department has made good progress
in reducing administrative costs, albeit predominantly in the
less tangible form of non-cashable rather than cashable savings.
We are concerned, however, that the need to reduce headcount and
to make administrative efficiencies, and under the Comprehensive
Spending Review settlement to meet a significantly higher cash-releasing
efficiency target, will act as a constraint on DFID working in
the parts of the world where its assistance is most needed: the
poorest countries, often fragile states, which have so far failed
to benefit from the vast volumes of international aid. DFID therefore
needs to make some very difficult choices about withdrawing from
some countries, or some sectors, so that it can focus development
assistance where it will have the greatest effect on poverty reduction.
We look forward to contributing to this decision-making process
as part of our future work. (Paragraph 40)
10. We
believe that the funding mechanism offered by the Afghanistan
Reconstruction Trust Fund is an interesting development, particularly
as DFID is increasingly likely to be operating in fragile states
of this kind. We will be exploring this in more detail in our
inquiry into DFID's programme in Afghanistan. (Paragraph 43)
11. We
do not doubt DFID's commitment to gender equality but translating
this from policy to practical implementation at every level is
a complex task. We are not convinced that DFID yet has the measures
in place to achieve this but, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged,
the Millennium Development Goals cannot be achieved without progress
on gender equality. We expect DFID to provide us with more information
on the practical steps it is taking to "up its game"
in promoting gender equality across its programmes in response
to this report. (Paragraph
49)
12. Although
DFID has shown welcome leadership in seeking to assist developing
countries to deal with climate change, this has not yet resulted
in changes at country office level, where the necessary assistance
with adaptation and mitigation can be given. The Environmental
Transformation Fund is a welcome and useful means of tackling
climate change but we are concerned that DFID is relying too heavily
on operating through multilateral bodies in implementing its climate
change policy, which risks climate change being obscured by the
different priorities of other aid agencies. We believe that DFID
should demonstrate its commitment to tackling climate change by
seeking to ensure as a matter of priority that its country office
staff are properly supported and resourced to implement this crucial
area of policy. (Paragraph
54)
13. We
agree that assistance to developing countries to adopt mitigation
and adaptation strategies to deal with climate change needs to
be given sooner rather than later. We therefore recommend that
research funding allocated to climate change under the new Research
Strategy is set at a level which reflects its urgency as a development
issue. (Paragraph
58)
14. DFID
has clearly demonstrated in the publication of its 2006 White
Paper the importance it attaches to effective governance as a
means of tackling poverty. We agree that without proper governance
and accountability in developing countries little real progress
will be made towards the Millennium Development Goals. The Governance
and Transparency Fund offers an opportunity to advance effective
governance through small-scale projects in a number of developing
countries. This requires projects to be selected against clear
and specific criteria which reflect DFID's objectives. We request
that DFID supplies further information on the allocations made
from the Fund after funding decisions begin to be made in December
2007 (Paragraph
62)
15. We
believe that DFID should lead by example in working with national
parliaments in recipient countries to strengthen parliamentary
scrutiny and to promote accountability and transparency in the
way DFID funding is allocated and used. We welcome the steps already
taken in this area and recommend that DFID country offices actively
seek opportunities to contribute to public scrutiny by offering
briefings and specific and detailed information to parliamentarians
and others in recipient countries.
(Paragraph 64)
16. We
disagree with DFID's view that the impact of individual programmes
of parliamentary strengthening is limited. Effective accountability
and scrutiny and proper transparency of course require contributions
from a number of different elements of society but parliaments
and parliamentarians are uniquely placed to provide leadership
in this area and amongst the various stakeholders in developing
countries they are most likely to have the mechanisms and resources
available to perform a scrutiny role at the highest levels. We
believe that this should be reflected in DFID making an increased
level of funding available for parliamentary strengthening.
(Paragraph 66)
17. We
have observed in Ethiopia the potential benefits to transparency
and civil society capacity-building that DFID can bring by incorporating
accountability to local people into its funding arrangements.
We recommend that DFID continues to promote good governance by
ensuring that, as part of funding agreements it makes with recipient
countries, information is provided to local people on how much
the government is spending in their area on essential services
such as health, education, and water and sanitation.
(Paragraph 69)
18. We
welcome the new information contained in the Annual Report on
policy coherence for development but believe it could be further
enhanced. We appreciate that the Annual Report is already a substantial
volume and that adding more detail could result in an unwieldy
and less helpful document. But we believe that to be meaningful,
the information provided on policy coherence needs to have much
more emphasis on the effects of policies beyond aid. It also needs
to be more country specific and to reflect the proper participation
of developing countries in assessing the effects on them of UK
policies. (Paragraph 73)
| 
