Memorandum submitted by the Department
for International Development (DFID)
INQUIRY INTO DFID'S DEPARTMENTAL REPORT 2007
ANSWERS TO THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE'S WRITTEN QUESTIONS 10 JULY 2007
GENDER EQUALITY
1. DFID's Gender Equality Action Plan envisages
a gender equality research programme (Action Plan, Annex A). To
what extent is this to establish empirical evidence for DFID of
a link between gender equality and poverty reduction, and to what
extent is this aimed at demonstrating the level of progress still
required from many countries to meet MDG3?
Answer—DFID is funding two five-year
research programmes on women's empowerment, implemented by a consortium
led by the Institute of Development Studies in the University
of Sussex and one led by City University, Hong Kong. The aim of
the research is to better understand the factors that lead to
women's empowerment and their relationship to development, poverty
reduction and the achievement of the MDGs. The research will not
make recommendations for particular countries, but will identify
key factors, across ten countries and four regions, which drive
and hinder women's empowerment. A key theme for the research is
examining how institutions and political processes can lend support
to women's empowerment to promote greater equality.
This research meets a substantial gap in knowledge
of the processes that bring about women's empowerment. Its outcomes
will enable DFID to design more effective pro-poor and equity-focused
policies and programmes and as a substantial body of knowledge
internationally will be of great use to other development organisations,
international and national bodies and partner governments.
PSA TARGETS: CONFLICT
PREVENTION
2. For each of the nine theatres of operation
covered by sub-target 1 of Target 5 (Conflict prevention), described
on pages 304-8 of the Annual Report, what has been DFID's contribution
and what were DFID's expenditures?
Answer—Annex 1 of this document
provides detail on each theatre of operation (Afghanistan, Balkans,
DRC, Iraq, MEPP, Nepal, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Sudan).
— Similarly, what has been DFID's
contribution and what were DFID's expenditures on each of the
three component strands of sub-target 2 (pages 309-10 of the Annual
Report)?
Answer—HMG's objectives for UN
peacekeeping are delivered through the UN Strategy of the Global
Conflict Prevention Pool, to which DFID contributes strategically
and financially. The UN Strategy aims to improve the quality of
UN-mandated peacekeeping through: better leadership; more and
better trained (military, police and civilian) personnel through
training existing and potential troop-contributing countries;
and clearer operational guidelines and better planning of complex
missions.
DFID manages, on behalf of the GCPP UN strategy,
a £1.9 million programme with the Best Practices Section
of the UN's Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), a £1.3
million programme with the UN Institute for Training and Research
(UNITAR) and a £0.9 million programme with the Conflict Prevention
and Peace Forum (CPPF) to:
— improve the quality of peacekeeping
mission leadership, including by providing pre-deployment training
for Special Representatives of the Secretary General and helping
them access external expertise and analysis;
— support the implementation of the
integrated mission planning process (IMPP) at the onset of planning
for peacekeeping missions;
— support the development of a UN peacekeeping
doctrine, which will set out the scope of modern UN peace operations,
their fundamental/guiding principles, and the success factors
and major lessons learned from UN peace operations;
— provide peacekeeping missions with
a body of best practice on security sector reform (SSR), disarmament,
demobilisation and reintegration (DDR), rule of law, gender and
HIV/AIDS; and
— provide targeted funding for gender
advisers in peacekeeping missions, to strengthen the participation
of women in peacebuilding.
The ACPP has been actively supporting the development
of the Africa Standby Force throughout 2006-07 by providing support
to the AU in the development of central planning, doctrine and
operational capacity and through providing training for African
troop-contributing countries in undertaking effective peace support
operations. Although DFID has remained actively engaged in this
work through the Pool, the actual funding has come entirely from
the FCO and MOD side of the ACPP. DFID ACPP support has focused
more on the development of mediation mechanisms within the African
Union and other regional institutions.
— Why is the DFID programme budget
for Iraq continuing to fall in 2007-08 (Annual Report p 270)?
To what extent does the £30 million programme reflect: a
winding-down of the aid programmes in that country; a reassessment
of what is achievable in a difficult security environment; or
an increased capacity of the Government of Iraq itself to address
the needs of the Iraqi people? What are the main components of
DFID's Iraq budget (eg stabilisation, reconstruction, humanitarian
aid, development assistance) and how is each component being delivered?
Answer—DFID's programme is slowly
reducing as Iraqi investment is coming on stream. Iraq has plenty
of resources in its own budget (forecast revenues of $33 billion
in 2007) and the responsibility to provide services to its citizens.
Our focus is to help the Iraqi government make
better use of these resources so that they can deliver better
public services. To this end, DFID is focusing on those areas
where it can add the most value: providing high-level policy advice
and technical assistance to central government departments, helping
the Provincial Council in Basra to lead its own reconstruction
programme, and providing targeted inputs on reconciliation and
humanitarian assistance.
DFID is helping the government to strengthen
its management of the economy; invest in public services; reduce
poverty; and generate jobs. We are providing a range of expert
support to the key Iraqi ministries, including the Ministry of
Finance in Baghdad.
In southern Iraq, we are supporting the UK-led
Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Basra, which is driving
forward local development and reconstruction. Our existing power
and water infrastructure projects are coming to an end, and by
late 2007 we will have added or secured electricity equivalent
to providing 24-hour electricity for around a million people and
improved access to water for a million people.
We are also continuing to support the UN and
other humanitarian agencies to assist internally and externally
displaced persons in Iraq.
DFID's priorities for 2007-08 are:
— developing Iraqi capacity to manage
its own affairs and build economic recovery;
— helping the Iraq government to tackle
structural economic problems so that it can finance its own reconstruction;
— providing technical assistance to
support Iraqi economic and political leadership; and
— supporting humanitarian agencies.
Since 2003, the UK has pledged a total of £744
million for reconstruction and development assistance for Iraq.
This includes contributions from DFID, FCO, MoD, the Global Conflict
Prevention Pool (GCPP), and the UK's share of EC funding (currently
between 17 and 19%). DFID has disbursed over £400 million
from a total of £600 million disbursed by the UK. This includes
£80 million on rehabilitating infrastructure (power and water)
in southern Iraq, £127 million on humanitarian assistance
(mainly through UN agencies and the Red Cross), a £70 million
contribution to the International Reconstruction Fund Facility
for Iraq (IRFFI) through UN/World Bank Trust Funds, and £70
million for technical assistance supporting civil society, economic
reform, governance, and the media.
— £127 million in bilateral
aid is provided to Afghanistan, including £98 million from
DFID (Annual Report p 242). To what extent does this DFID-funded
aid underpin the performance of the "Asia" PSA target
(Target 2) and to what extent the conflict prevention target (Target
5)?
Answer—The primary purpose of DFID
aid provided to Afghanistan is to reduce poverty. However, it
is impossible to do this in Afghanistan without also addressing
the ongoing conflict. DFID is therefore working to ensure that
its programme is conflict sensitive, including a focus on improving
governance as a key component of our work, and specific assistance
to conflict-affected areas. Of a total spend of £98 million
in 2005-06, we provided £1 million to support provincial
stabilisation in Helmand and Kandahar, and £7.4 million to
help build effective state institutions. Afghanistan is currently
off track on all of the MDGs, including poverty reduction, but
the Government of Afghanistan's (GoA) Interim Afghanistan National
Development Strategy, agreed by the UN, sets out the government's
vision for meeting all the MDGs from a later baseline by 2020.
PSA Target 2 is "progress towards the MDGs
in nine key countries in Asia". The DFID programme in Afghanistan
aims to reduce poverty (MDG 1) by promoting economic growth and
rural economic development. In 2005-06 DFID spent £42 million
to support this, much of which was channelled through GoA National
Priority Programmes; including improving infrastructure essential
for economic growth and providing microfinance for small businesses.
With continued DFID support, small loans have now reached over
335,000 families. Over 9,500 kilometres of rural roads have been
built or repaired, and around 13 million people in all 34 provinces
have benefited from reconstruction projects in their communities.
In addition, DFID's programme in Afghanistan
also supports progress towards MDGs 2-5. Our support to the ARTF
(£45 million in 2005-06) helps the GoA to pay salaries for
teachers and healthcare workers. This supports progress towards
universal primary education (including more girls in school),
reduction in child mortality and better maternal health. Afghanistan
now has around 5.4 million children in school (about one-third
of whom are girls), and 40,000 fewer babies dying each year than
under Taliban rule.
CAPABILITY REVIEW
3. The recent DFID Capability Review scored
two criteria as "urgent development areas". One of these
was "plan, resource and prioritise". The Review notes
DFID will be increasing the scale of its programme whilst reducing
its administrative costs. The Review notes however that "it
is not yet clear ... what strategic choices it will make"
and that "DFID has not yet taken sufficiently tough choices
on country presence, funding mechanisms and sectoral activity"
(Review p 21). The Permanent Secretary's response also notes the
need for some tough decisions on where we spend our money"
(Review p 6). What is the Department's current view on what programmes,
countries and aid mechanisms are more likely to be given lower
priority and funding?
Answer—We agree that we need to
make important strategic choices, related both to the aid programme
and to wider promotion of international development. We will be
discussing options with our new Ministerial team over the summer.
Given this, we now aim to complete a draft Corporate Plan in the
autumn which will set out clear decisions in the context of a
longer-term vision.
4. On the other urgent development area—"building
common purpose"—the Review concluded among other things
that "evaluation of DFID's outcomes is not sufficiently independent"
(Capability Review p 20). How will the new Independent Advisory
Committee on Development Impact improve such evaluation?
Answer—DFID's evaluation studies
are already conducted by independent consultants though the work
programme is decided by DFID. The Independent Advisory Committee
on Development Impact will further increase the independence of
DFID's evaluation in three ways: (1) by challenging the work programme
priorities and suggesting new areas that need to be addressed;
(2) by Chairing steering committees of flagship evaluations so
that the scope of the work is determined independently; and (3)
by independent checks on the follow-up being made by DFID to the
conclusions of evaluation studies. Where there is a shortfall
this will be highlighted in a letter issued annually to the Secretary
of State for International Development.
5. The Permanent Secretary's response to
the DFID Capability Review (page 6 in the Review) envisages future
PSAs providing an "opportunity to intensify joint working"
with other departments. You told us in response to our report
on the Departmental Report 2006 that you had developed a Shared
Services Delivery Plan with the FCO (HC 328, Session 2006-07,
Response to Paragraph 60 of report). What efficiency savings have
been achieved under the Plan and what further savings are envisaged?
What other forms of joint working with other departments does
DFID envisage?
Answer—The DFID-FCO Shared Services
Delivery Plan (SSDP) sets out our Departments' intentions to share
services wherever it represents value for money. Our focus will
primarily be on Africa and South Asia, where the opportunities
to share services and staff are greatest. The Plan covers Human
Resources, Information Systems, Procurement and Estates, including
co-locating and sharing offices overseas. The Plan also includes
a Service Level Agreement between the FCO and DFID which sets
out arrangements for sharing services overseas.
Progress has already been made on each of these
work streams under the Plan. For example, in Tanzania we are sharing
IT Administrators and have done a joint pay review for locally
engaged junior grade staff. In addition, we are collecting data
on locally engaged staff in co-located offices as part of wider
efforts to better align terms and conditions of service, and we
are exploring the potential for shared procurement processes overseas.
In the forthcoming CSR period, our intentions
under the joint plan include:
— to share services with the FCO wherever
it offers value for money;
— in countries where we both have a
presence, to increase the proportion of DFID staff who are in
co-located offices by at least 25%;
— as a result of co-location, to achieve
aggregate incremental savings in our support costs of at least
5% year on year by 2010-11; and
— to harmonise the pay and conditions
of support staff in all co-located offices by April 2009.
We are also looking to coordinate with the British
Council wherever it represents value for money.
We will be working closely with a range of other
Departments to develop and deliver HMG policies of common interest.
This will involve DEFRA on climate change, FCO and MoD on security
and peace-building, and the Home Office on migration. The joint
Public Service Agreement will be the vehicle for integrating objectives
with those of OGDs, including doing joint analysis and developing
joint strategies. We are also actively encouraging staff exchanges
with several Whitehall Departments.
BALANCE BETWEEN
MIDDLE-INCOME
AND LOW-INCOME
COUNTRIES
6. Table A.3.3 in the Annual Report (p 243)
identifies £35 million in bilateral aid provided in China
in 2005-06. Page xiv of the Annual Report highlights a £27
million education programme. In determining whether to provide
aid in China, and the amount to spend, what account does DFID
take of China's ability itself to provide aid to other countries?
Answer—Our Country Assistance Plan
for China 2006-11 sets out two objectives for the period. The
first was to build on our past achievements with China on poverty
reduction, by approving four new programmes in 2006 and 2007 for
basic education, HIV and AIDS, water supply, sanitation and hygiene
promotion, and rural health systems reform. These programmes seek
to improve the quality and poverty-focus of the government's own
spending by piloting new approaches, rather than filling a funding
gap. We will then implement those programmes, together with the
existing portfolio, until the end of 2010-11, when the bilateral
programme to China will end.
The second objective recognises China's important
impact on poverty reduction in other developing countries. This
impact includes China's aid programme, but also focuses on its
trade and foreign investment, particularly with Africa; on China's
global contribution to sustainable development and climate change
issues; and helping to promote South-South learning on China's
experience on poverty reduction. This work primarily involves
staff time in building relationships and confidence, although
an annual amount of £1 million has been allocated for this
work. We have established a bi-annual high level dialogue with
the Chinese on international development, and recently held joint
FCO/DFID talks on Africa with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. A box on our work on China and Africa is on page 26 of
the Departmental Report.
7. What evidence does the Department have
of a positive impact on poverty levels in China and India which
is directly attributable to DFID's aid programme?
Answer for China—DFID has influenced
government policies, how they are implemented, and their impact
on the poorest. Influencing government policy is difficult in
China, which makes the following examples all the more remarkable.
On basic education, DFID's work has improved access for disadvantaged
children, increasing enrolment by 12%, and improved the quality
and relevance of their education. More importantly, lessons from
our programme have fed into national policies. The Ministry of
Education is using materials developed by DFID to support the
roll-out of the new national curriculum, participatory whole-school
development planning, and an improved education management information
system. The Southwest Basic Education Project is helping local
governments to identify which children should receive a subsidy
to attend school, and developing tools to track progress. This
will help to maximise the poverty impact of the £1.3 billion
that the government has allocated to removing school fees.
On HIV and AIDS, DFID has supported the prevention
of HIV amongst vulnerable populations of injecting drug users
and sex workers since 2000. The policy environment was very restrictive
but government recognised the success of the piloted approaches
in reduced needle sharing and increased condom use. Harm reduction
and condom promotion are now central to government policy.
We believe this work will have a major impact
on global progress towards meeting the MDGS. The financial amounts
are modest. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the Government's own domestic programmes in reaching the poorest.
Answer for India—DFID's financial
assistance in India is typically pooled with that of the government
and often with other donors, including the World Bank, the European
Commission and UN agencies, so direct attributions are difficult.
But we have been an important funder and provider of technical
support to many successful national and state programmes, including:
— national primary education programme:
a reduction in the number of out-of-school children from 25 million
to below 10 million over the last three years. Proportionately
more girls, scheduled castes and tribal children enrolled. DFID
has funded 5% of the programme (£210 million in total) and
DFID reviews have contributed to the entire national programme;
— polio: India, one of four remaining
polio endemic countries, is now close to polio eradication. DFID
has provided £128 million support in the last seven years;
— tuberculosis: reduction in number
of deaths from TB down from 500,000 in 1997 to 370,000 today.
DFID is currently committing £8 million per year;
— HIV/AIDS: prevalence maintained at
less than 1%. DFID is contributing about £20 million a year;
— child health: infant mortality has
fallen from 79 to 57 per 1,000 live births between 1993 and 2006.
DFID is contributing to this through both national and state programmes;
— microfinance: DFID-funded projects
have enabled microfinance institutions to reach over 7 million
beneficiaries since 2000, the great majority of whom are women;
— rural poverty: a recent evaluation
estimates that 2.3 million people have moved out of poverty due
to DFID support for rural-livelihood projects in our focus states.
Good impact on women's empowerment; and
— urban poverty: several million slum
dwellers have gained better access to water, sanitation and other
local services, through our urban sector projects in West Bengal
and Andhra Pradesh.
8. What assessment has the Department made
of the continuing value of maintaining the small and reducing
aid programmes in the Americas (£85 million in 2005-06),
Europe (£90 million) and the Pacific region (only £4
million)?
Answer—The Latin America programme
is aimed at working with the World Bank and the Inter-American
Development Bank to increase the impact of their programmes on
poverty. An independent evaluation in 2006 concluded that this
was an example of how limited financial resources can achieve
impact. Benefits include co-operatives and small businesses obtaining
profitable markets, and people without documentation being registered
so they are able to vote and to get basic services from government.
In the Caribbean, an independent evaluation
in 2006-07 concluded that DFID had made an effective contribution
to the region's development, had sensibly focussed on regional
institutions, and was helping the European Commission to improve
its performance.
Assistance to the Americas includes aid to the
British Overseas Territory of Montserrat (£15.6 million in
2006-07), where we are obliged to provide for the islanders' reasonable
needs. Our support enables the Montserrat Government to provide
essential services and creates an environment which encourages
progress towards self-sustainability, despite the continuing volcanic
activity.
Our programmes in Europe (which included £45
million debt relief to Serbia) are helping governments with European
integration, and in the Western Balkans to prepare for EU accession.
The 2006 evaluation of our West Balkans programme, for example,
emphasised our success in supporting countries in finding way
to use aid effectively, especially EC funds.
The DFID Pacific office closed in March 2004
after DFID judged that the Pacific had made good progress and
had reached a level of development that meant that it no longer
needed substantial DFID support. Residual spending is limited
to final funding for projects that had not yet reached completion
by that date.
— Is the Department looking at programmes
in these regions as part of the need to address priorities identified
in the recent Capability Review?
Answer—DFID has continued its work
in Latin America because the continent contains 50 million people
living on less than $1 per day. However, we have prioritised heavily
in the region and now only have a bilateral programme in Nicaragua
(the poorest country). The Caribbean programme is maintained because
of the relative importance of UK assistance in the region. We
have prioritised by closing all bilateral programmes except Jamaica
and Guyana and focussing on support to Caribbean-wide regional
organisations.
We have graduated from 14 middle-income countries
in Europe and its neighbourhood since 2002. We expect to graduate
from more of these countries over the coming few years, where
progress with poverty reduction is secure.
9. DFID provides bilateral aid to some EU
countries—Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Poland and Romania
(Annual report Table A.3.4, pp 246-7). Do these programmes pre-date
entry of these countries into the EU? To what extent do the UK's
bilateral programmes duplicate types of assistance funding provided
by the EU itself?
Answer—Bilateral aid to Cyprus
comprises pensions and related payments to former colonial civil
servants and their dependants. DFID is responsible for Britain's
obligations and policy on overseas UK pensions.
DFID bilateral assistance in Hungary, Poland,
Bulgaria and Romania related to projects that pre-dated those
countries' entry into the EU. Programmes in Hungary and Poland
closed in March 2003; they joined the EU in March 2004. In Bulgaria
and Romania, bilateral assistance closed in March 2005; they joined
the EU in January 2007. The UK's bilateral assistance to these
countries was specifically designed to complement and work alongside
EU interventions. Expenditure in 2005-06 related mainly to the
conclusion of projects in ways designed to maximise value for
money, and to humanitarian assistance in response to widespread
flooding in the Danube basin. The main areas of concluding projects
were in public-administration reform, including accountancy and
audit, and in support to child welfare reform.
COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING
REVIEW
10. The Annual Report notes that DFID's CSR
financial bid was submitted to the Treasury on 2 March 2007 (DAR
para 10.9). What was the size of that bid?
— The Committee requests a summary
of each of the sections of the March 2007 CSR bid listed in paragraph
10.9 of the Annual Report, and a copy of the bid submission. The
Committee would also like to receive a copy of the latest draft
of DFID's new Corporate Plan (Annual Report para 10.10).
— CSR work undertaken "suggests
... the need to find ways of spending a growing budget with flat
administrative resources" (DAR para 10.1). What is the level
of that higher budget likely to be (in broad terms if no precise
figures are yet under consideration)? What is the level of that
"flat" administrative budget likely to be (in broad
terms if no precise figures are yet under consideration)?
Answer—The 2007 Comprehensive Spending
Review (CSR) bid is based on the trajectory of reaching the Government's
commitment to achieving 0.7% ODA/GNI by 2013.
The bid reflects the policy priorities in the
International Development White Paper "Eliminating World
Poverty: Making Governance Work for the Poor". The bid provides
additional information to support DFID's aspirations for the next
three years. It is focussed on poverty reduction in sub-Saharan
Africa and South Asia (where most of the world's poor live), in
fragile states and countries on conflict, and on creating public
goods. Key programme proposals in the bid include: poverty reduction
in Africa (emphasising improvements in the provision of basic
services, expanding economic opportunities, and better governance);
tackling conflict, and building peace in fragile and conflict
states; scaling up our bilateral support to delivery of education,
health, and water and sanitation services; linking our resources
to improved multilateral performance by the UN, World Bank, European
Bank and African Development Bank; delivering on our debt relief
commitments; and contributing to the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) through investment in global public goods,
including climate change, research and development, trade, and
governance and transparency.
We are still negotiating with HMT regarding
the settlement, which we expect to be announced in the autumn,
so cannot release detailed CSR documentation. However, in common
with other Whitehall Departments, a 5% real pa reduction in administration
costs is required during the CSR period.
We are developing a corporate plan, to be finalised
after the CSR settlement, which will set out how we plan to manage
our programme settlement and the real reduction in administrative
costs.
11. Whom did the Department consult externally
in formulating its CSR financial bid and prospective new PSA targets?
Answer—The Department was engaged
in a significant consultation process in 2006 in the preparation
of the White Paper. The CSR bid is therefore based on the policy
priorities set out in the White Paper. During the formulation
of the PSA the Department has liaised with the UK Aid network
and has participated in a peer review on the PSA organised by
the Treasury, which involved stakeholders ranging from NGOs, academics,
research institutes and other aid donors.
12. The commitments made in 2005 on increased
aid and debt cancellation, when the UK held the G8 and EU presidencies,
came after the current 2004 Spending Review targets had been formulated.
What is the Department's current thinking on how such aims might
be reflected in the new PSA targets of the CSR?
Answer—Taking forward the 2005
agenda remains a key commitment in the White Paper. Specific White
Paper commitments are being monitored and the 2005 priorities
are being incorporated in the PSA framework alongside other commitments.
13. What changes does the Department want
to see to ensure the new PSA targets (i) more closely reflect
the contribution of DFID to the MDG goals, and (ii) are capable
of assessment without the current long time-lags in collecting
and analysing data?
Answer—The Public Service Agreement
(PSA) framework is changing during the CSR period. The PSA will
reflect the most important Government priorities, while Departmental
Strategic Objectives (DSOs) will reflect each Department's business.
Each PSA will have a lead government department, although several
departments will contribute to delivery. DFID is leading on an
international poverty reduction PSA with support from other government
Departments, and is supporting other Government priorities on
Climate Change, Conflict and Counter-Terrorism which are being
led by other Government departments. All PSA agreements will be
published in the autumn with the CSR settlements.
The PSA framework will be based on MDG goals
and indicators.
While the PSA will draw from an internationally
recognised data source which provides the set with independence,
there remain limitations with the timeliness and accuracy of the
data. DFID continues to work alongside partner Governments and
international organisations to improve this, but it will remain
a constraint in the interpretation and analysis of data. There
are proposals under development to increase investment in the
statistical systems of developing countries, so as to improve
the availability, timeliness and precision of statistics to monitor
development progress. DFID is supporting this initiative to accelerate
investment in statistics.
RESEARCH
14. DFID plans to fund £128 million
of research in 2007-08 (Annual Report p 271). How much of DFID's
aid programme is currently underpinned by DFID-funded research,
how much by research funded by other countries or multilateral
organisations, and how much of the programme is not significantly
influenced by recent research at all?
Answer—DFID's research programme
aims to generate and get into use new technologies and policy-relevant
knowledge that will help to reduce poverty and achieve the MDGs.
DFID is an important client for DFID research, alongside policy-makers,
research institutes and research users in partner countries; multilateral
organisations; other bilateral donors and civil society. In this
sense, the outputs of DFID's centrally-commissioned research are
intended as "global public goods".
DFID is committed to better use of evidence
in policy-making, both as a matter of good development practice
and as part of the cross-government commitment to improve the
management of science and research. This includes the evidence
from DFID research but goes broader.
It is difficult to assess empirically how much
DFID policies are influenced by DFID's own research; however,
a recent study showed that over 40% of references in the 2000
White Paper on International Development were to centrally-commissioned
research. Similarly, the analysis on fragile states in the 2006
White Paper: Making Governance Work for the Poor drew on
long-term research commissioned by DFID. There is a strong link
between DFID's sectoral policies and strategies and research priorities:
for instance, DFID's health, HIV and AIDS and agriculture strategies
all make important commitments to R&D.
Research funded by countries and multilateral
organisations influences DFID a great deal. The Evidence for Action
annex to DFID's recently-launched health strategy provides an
example of the types of evidence that DFID has drawn on to inform
its policy commitments in health.
Centrally-commissioned research reflects the
aid programme's emphasis on the MDGs, as well as the concentration
of DFID spending in low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa
and South Asia. To this extent, DFID's smaller spending programmes
(for instance in Eastern Europe and Central Asia) could be seen
to benefit less directly from centrally-commissioned research.
However, all country programmes are able to commission research
relevant to national needs.
— How much of the research budget
for 2007-08 do you expect to be go to UK-based research institutes?
What criteria does DFID use in selecting organisations to carry
out its commissioned research?
Answer—We expect to channel around
£48 million (37.5%) of the 2007-08 research budget through
lead partners based at UK institutes, including universities,
think-tanks, NGOs, research councils and private sector providers.
Funds awarded to a lead agency are often shared
among research consortium members across a number of developing
countries. In the same way, UK research institutes are frequently
partners in programmes awarded to consortia lead by Southern institutions,
and receive indirect funding this way.
The majority of directly-managed research, including
DFID's programmes with the UK Research Councils, is awarded through
calls for research proposals, advertised in relevant journals
and on the web. Selection criteria vary but typically include:
policy relevance; stakeholder analysis and involvement; capacity
building and communicating with research users.
DFID occasionally responds to "unique"
research proposals from a single supplier, where there are strong
reasons to do so (eg in order to promote a particular scientific
breakthrough). DFID may also initiate new programmes that use
UK research councils as a sole provider in priority areas where
global research needs can be best met using UK specialist expertise.
For instance, we are collaborating with ESRC and NERC on a large
eco-systems services research and capacity programme for poor
countries.
— To what extent is DFID's research
programme followed by adjustments to the destination or structure
of its aid programme, and to what extent does DFID-funded research
have no direct influence on the aid programme?
Answer—DFID is working to improve
the coherence of decision-making and resource allocation through
more rigorous use of research evidence. The development of country
governance assessments that inform funding decisions affecting
country programmes is one example of how we are systematising
the use of research.
We are also working to improve our use of research
evidence in order to better predict what development interventions
are likely to work in what settings to bring the best results
for poverty reduction. To this extent, research will be given
a greater weight among considerations affecting the destination
and structure of the aid programme.
— How widely is DFID-funded research
shared with other major donors (eg EU, World Bank, other major
bilateral donors) and with other Government Departments, and what
assessment has been made of the impact on effectiveness of sharing
research in this way?
Answer—The outputs of DFID research
are widely shared with the research user community, including
other major funders and UK Government Departments. This is done
in a number of ways. Firstly, the research partners for all DFID's
directly-managed research are asked to develop communication strategies,
which require them to engage at an early stage with key target
audiences about their research questions and findings. 10% of
programme budgets are devoted to this.
Secondly, research is routinely disseminated
by publishing findings and case studies in peer review journals;
through a dedicated DFID research "portal" providing
details of all centrally commissioned research (this receives
on average 13,600 "visits" a month); and through a range
of websites and electronic news services which DFID supports to
report on, package and synthesise research outputs (for instance
ID21 and SciDev.com, the second of which receives 20,000 hits
a week).
DFID advisory staff, including the Chief Scientific
Adviser and Heads of Profession, bring relevant DFID research
to the attention of key stakeholders in the course of their work.
In addition, DFID's Central Research Department initiated and
chairs a network of major research funders dedicated to communication
issues. This shares information on the outputs of research, as
well as good practice about research communication approaches.
DFID health research has helped to influence
the norms and standards of the World Health Organisation, most
recently on such issues as effective tuberculosis treatment and
the early initiation of breastfeeding. DFID agricultural research
on participatory varietal selection and plant breeding has encouraged
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
to invest more in this issue. It has also lead to changes in plant-breeding
policy in India and Nepal.
Working within Whitehall, DFID uses meetings
of Chief Scientific Advisers and the Global Science and Innovation
Forum to raise the profile of relevant research findings. DFID
policy teams also discuss evidence and research as part of their
on-going collaboration with other Government Departments. DEFRA's
position on climate change has drawn heavily on DFID research
on the adaptation needs of African countries. DFID research on
migration has influenced cross-Government debate on such key policy
coherence questions as international migration. Last month DFID
ran a workshop with the Department of Communities and Local Government
which shared research findings from Northern and Southern practitioners
about good practice for community involvement in local government.
HIV/AIDS ORPHANS
15. How much of the £150 million you
committed to spend between 2005-06 and 2007-08 to meet the needs
of HIV/AIDS orphans has been used? How many orphans and vulnerable
children have been assisted by this funding and in which countries?
What plans are there for further targeted expenditure of this
kind for future financial years?
Answer—Work carried out for the
recent independent evaluation of the UK Strategy for Tackling
HIV and AIDS in the developing world indicated that the UK was
making good progress towards this target. The evaluation also
noted the programming difficulties in tracking the amount of funding
that reaches children affected by AIDS, using as an example a
£20 million programme in Zambia. Although the funding is
reaching children affected by AIDS, this is not indicated within
the monitoring codes attached to the project by DFID because the
funding is being channelled at a national level towards civil
society and UN agencies and can also be combined with other funding
sources (eg the Global Fund and World Bank). The evaluation consultants
identified 178 potentially relevant projects and programmes with
spending of more than £60 million in the first 11 months
of 2005-06. DFID is reviewing the methodology used to track this
expenditure building on comments in the evaluation report.
| 
