Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for International Development (DFID)
Annex A
Governance and Transparency Fund (GTF)
(in response to questions 13-16 in oral evidence) 1 October 2007
KEY THEMES
1. The deadline for Concept Notes was set
for the end of June by which time we had received almost 450 Notes.
Of these, 293 have been assessed as having met the basic criteria
and invited to submit a full proposal.
2. The Fund Manager has categorised all
of the accepted Concept Notes as follows:
| Conflict Prevention/Peace Building
| 3 |
| Public Financial Management/Public Expenditure monitoring
| 28 |
| Reform/Access to Public Services | 51
|
| Controlling Corruption/Increasing Transparency
| 37 |
| Electoral Monitoring and Democratisation |
6 |
| Climate Change and the Environment | 3
|
| Reform/Access to Justice, Safety and Security
| 74 |
| Admin Reform/Access to Admin Reform | 34
|
| Decentralisation and Local Government | 19
|
| Enabling Business, Trade and Investment |
10 |
| Access to Information/Open Press | 28
|
| |
3. Although we have placed each of the potential proposals
in to one of the above categories there are a number of these
which do actually target more than one area. In this case, we
have selected the area which would appear to be the primary target.
The deadline for full proposals is 28 September and there is a
possibility that a number of accepted Concept Notes will not develop
in to full proposals.
BACKGROUND
4. The Governance and Transparency Fund (GTF) was first
publicly announced as one of the main commitments in DFID's White
Paper Eliminating world poverty: making governance work for
the poor. The Paper spoke about the launch of a new £100
million GTF aimed at strengthening the ability of civil society
and the media to hold governments to account.
5. In follow up to this commitment, DFID officials began
to pull together a first draft of the criteria and guidelines
for the Fund. In keeping with the Cabinet Office's COMPACT best
practise guidance on working with civil society, a full 12 week
public consultation, based around these draft criteria and guidelines,
was launched in September 2006.
6. A full copy of the papers was placed in the consultation
section of the DFID website and copies were circulated to a wide
range of interested parties, both from DFID offices in the UK
and through the wide network of DFID offices in country.
7. The consultation attracted a good range of comments
from a variety of organisations from around the world. The bulk
of the feedback received was provided by UK based civil society
organisations but input was also received from respondees based
elsewhere in Europe, in North America, Asia and Africa. The vast
bulk of the feedback concentrated on details such as the proposed
restriction of only one application per organisation, the fact
that the fund would have only one funding round and concerns over
the outsourcing of the Fund Manager role to a contracted non-DFID
source.
8. This feedback was used to further develop and finalise
the guidelines and criteria of the Fund. Some minor changes were
made as a result including to lower the minimum funding level
available from the initial £1 million to £750,000 and,
in order to ensure transparency, including a representative from
civil society to join the decision making panel for the external
Fund Manager contract.
9. Final criteria and guidelines were agreed at Ministerial
level in February 2007 and the Secretary of State formally launched
the Fund later that month. At the same time the management of
the Fund was put out to competitive tender and, after a healthy
and open bidding process, during which civil society was represented
by a member from BOND, the contract was won by a four-organisation
consortium led by KPMG.
10. The agreed and approved application process was such
that all interested parties had to submit a brief Concept Note.
The Concept Note did not require the applicant to go in to great
detail but simply asked that they listed their proposed activities
and provide copies their organisation's constitution and financial
accounts. The Fund Manager then assessed all Concept Notes with
a view to rejecting only those which did not meet the basic criteria
of the Fund or those who clearly did not have the necessary experience
of managing support of this level.
We hope to make final funding decisions on all proposals
some time in December 2007 and are keen to ensure a good spread
of agreed programmes across not only the sectors listed above
but also geographically.
Annex B
Parliamentary Strengthening (in response to questions
15-17 in oral evidence)
Has a DFID official given formal evidence before developing
country legislature?
1. A survey of DFID country offices in response to this
question shows that, in recent memory, DFID officials have not
given formal evidence to parliamentary bodies in developing country
legislatures in the strictest sense. We suspect that, in most
circumstances, Accounting Officers in recipient line Ministries
would answer to their parliaments concerning support from donors.
2. Perhaps the closest to a formal request of this nature
came from Sierra Leone in September 2005 when DFID's head of office
was subpoenaed to provide evidence to the Parliamentary Finance
Committee on their investigation of anticorruption finances. After
taking advice, DFID decided that the head of office should not
appear before the committee, citing diplomatic immunity. However,
the head of office offered to meet the Chair of the Committee
outside of Parliament. And the DFID-funded Deputy Anti-Corruption
Commissioner did provide evidence to the Committee.
3. Outside formal evidence sessions, DFID country offices
regularly cooperate with parliamentarians. Examples include:
— DFID India has from time to time answered
parliamentary questions from the Indian Parliament;
— the Pakistan office has prepared reports
on the volume and allocation of DFID assistance for the National
Assembly Standing Committee on Economic Affairs;
— the head of DFID South Africa has responded
favourably to an invitation to address the Pan African Parliament;
— DFID Vietnam talks regularly with representatives
of the National Assembly on aid and development issues. The Assembly
was consulted on our Country Assistance Plan, and we would welcome
further opportunities to strengthen its ability to hold government
accountable for all its spending;
— DFID Tanzania has made a presentation on
budget support in the Tanzanian parliament, to a large group of
MPs;
— the health protection and social policy parliamentary
committee of the Kyrgyz Republic has been closely involved in
monitoring progress on sectoral strategies and projects supported
by DFID and other donors; and,
— DFID regularly holds formal consultations
with elected officials in the Overseas Territories. In St Helena,
for instance, our annual budget negotiations begin and conclude
with a formal scrutiny sitting with both executive and legislative
councils.
What is DFID doing on parliamentary strengthening?
4. The 2006 White Paper commits DFID to work more with
parliaments in developing countries, and to increase their effectiveness.
To help meet this commitment, our Policy and Research Division
recently took a strategic look at who does what in the field of
parliamentary strengthening, what the needs and gaps are and what
DFID should do.
5. Our findings included:
— Parliaments can play a key role in strengthening
governance in many dimensions. Figure One illustrates this point.
Given its wide-ranging potential, parliamentary strengthening
could be usefully woven into new and existing programmes with
diverse governance and development objectives.
Figure One
| Effective governance | Parliamentary roles
|
| State capability | Legislation
|
| Accountability | Oversight |
| Responsiveness | Representation
|
| |
— Parliaments and parliamentarians are embedded
in a political, social and cultural context, as illustrated in
Figure Two. There is little to be gained, therefore, from "stand
alone" programmes with parliaments. Our work must be closely
integrated with broader efforts to transform the contexts in which
we are working. Sometimes, in some places, it will make sense
to work with other parts of civil and political society as well
as, or instead of, with Parliaments.
Figure Two
— DFID's work in strengthening parliaments
is expanding rapidly. Our annual bilateral spend in this regard
is on an upward trend, and is now in the region of £14 million.
The table in the document attached presents the scope and projected
spend of selected DFID programmes in the field.
— The World Bank, UNDP, USAID and SIDA are
the most important international agencies working on parliamentary
strengthening. There are also a range of parliamentary networks,
political party foundations, research institutes and not-for-profits
organisations doing interesting and important work. The value
DFID might add comes from our acknowledged leadership on political
governance within the development community, the local knowledge
held within our country offices, and the enthusiasm of UK representatives—in
Westminster and beyond—to share experience with developing
country counterparts. The fact that parliaments in many developing
countries are based on the Westminster model may also give UK
agencies a comparative advantage.
— Parliamentary strengthening can be directed
at the individual level (eg training MPs), the organisational
level (eg strengthening parliamentary committees) or the institutional
level (eg strengthening linkages between parliaments and civil
society). More agencies work with individuals than with organisations,
and more with organisations than with institutions. DFID offices
are most likely to work "organisationally", with many
taking an "institutional" approach.
— Little effort has been made to evaluate the
impact of parliamentary strengthening work, or to devise frameworks
for assessing parliamentary effectiveness more broadly. Some organisations,
however, have made progress towards assessing parliamentary performance
more effectively. These efforts need support.
6. Building on these findings, it was agreed earlier
this year to pursue a number of new initiatives to strengthen
UK and international efforts around parliamentary development.
These include:
— Establishing which are the most promising
among current initiatives to measure parliamentary effectiveness.
Committing funds to close this information gap.
Progress: we have agreed, with Pan Africa Strategy Department,
to fund a research programme at the University of Cape Town which
aims to build the evidence base from which credible measures of
parliamentary effectiveness in Africa might emerge. We are also
discussing ways in which we might provide support to international
parliamentary networks seeking to define agreed "benchmarks"
of parliamentary effectiveness.
— Commissioning a number of case studies. Highlighting
the various approaches to parliamentary strengthening, their prevalence,
impact, strengths and limitations.
Progress: We are currently in discussion with potential contractors
for this work.
— Supporting—with the FCO, Westminster
Foundation for Democracy and other bodies in Westminster—the
establishment of a UK contact group on parliamentary strengthening.
To harness more constructively UK-based enthusiasm for strengthening
developing country parliaments.
Progress: Such a group appears to be emerging from an initial
meeting convened in the House of Commons by the Westminster Foundation
in June this year.
— Supporting—with UNDP and the World
Bank Institute (WBI)—the establishment of a donor consultative
group on parliamentary strengthening. To consider current needs
and gaps in more depth. To determine which agencies—if any—DFID
might support to strengthen international efforts in this field.
Progress: Such a group appears to be emerging from an initial
consultation convened by DFID, UNDP and WBI, in Brussels in May
of this year.
— Ensuring parliamentary strengthening activities
funded through DFID's Governance and Transparency Fund are informed
by emerging knowledge of best practice in this field.
Progress: We will take this forward as we come to examine
the initial round of "full" proposals to the GTF, expected
next month.
— Producing guidance for country offices. Distilling
the findings and recommendations of our recent "stocktake".
Presenting "best practice". Demonstrating how parliamentary
strengthening can help deliver DFID's broader governance—and
development—objectives.
Progress: We plan to update existing guidance in the coming
months, perhaps focusing most strongly on the role that parliaments
can play in the public financial management processes of the countries
where we work.
DFID Parliamentary Strengthening Projects
| Country/Region | Project title
| Dates | Commitment
| Purpose |
| Afghanistan | Support for Afghanistan's Parliamentary Elections
| 2005-06 | £3,600,000 |
Support for UNDP and Afghan Civil Society Forum in their efforts to provide civic education for September 2005 elections.
|
| Bangladesh | Strengthening the role and capacity of parliamentary committees in Bangladesh
| 2001-05 | £2,077,554 |
To assist the Parliament in strengthening its legislating, oversight and representative functions in order to achieve higher levels of transparency, efficiency and responsiveness.
|
| Burundi | Burundi Leadership Training Program
| 2005-07 | £1,108,014 |
Targeted leadership training workshops to create a cohesive network of Burundian leaders with a common vision, including but not exclusively parliamentarians.
|
| Central Asia | Central Asia Parliamentary and Governance Project
| 2004-05 | £96,000 |
To support the development of more accountable democracies across the region.
|
| DRC | Strengthening Democracy and Accountability in DRC
| 2006-11 | £50,000,000
| Programme over five years to strengthen democracy and government accountability in DRC—including support for political governance through support to the legislatures, political parties and the electoral commission.
|
| Ethiopia | | 2005-
| £21,350 | To build the capacity of federal and regional parliaments.
|
| Ghana | Parliamentary Financial Scrutiny Project
| 2006-08 | £330,000 (estimated)
| Strengthen public financial management and accountability by strengthening the capacity of Public Accounts Committee to hold Executive accountable.
|
| India | Advocacy Initiatives with Parliamentarians
| 2004 | £5,300 | Enhance the Government of lndia's understanding of pro-poor processes.
|
| Kenya | | 2005-06
| £9,537 | To enhance the effectiveness of parliament and parliamentary committees through the provision of information, research and legal services.
|
| Malawi | Strengthening Parliamentary Committees and Engagement with Civil Society
| 2001-04 | £4,400,000 |
Support for NDI and CIDA to strengthen parliamentary committees and to enhance civil society's involvement in parliamentary processes.
|
| Malawi | Tikambirane | 2003-08
| £10,000,000 | A programme to help poor people to realise their civil and political rights. Works with parliament, the electoral commission, media and civil society to develop a more accountable and responsive governance system.
|
| Mozambique | | 2006-09
| £450,000[2]
| Improving engagement between parliament and civil society with a view to strengthening the accountability of parliamentarians to the public.
|
| Nigeria | Strengthening the National Assembly Programme (SNAP)
| 2005-08 | £2,650,000 |
To develop the National Assembly's ability to support pro-poor reform.
|
| Pakistan | Pakistan Legislature Capacity Building Project
| 2003-06 | £630,000 |
To develop effective and responsive national and provincial assemblies.
|
| Russian Federation | Sharing Parliamentary Experience Project
| 2001-04 | £600,000 |
To strengthen practice, in both chambers of the Federal Assembly, in the areas of legislative process, representation and accountability.
|
| Russian Federation | Parliamentary Cooperation Project
| 1998-2002 | £300,000 |
To contribute to increased efficiency and effectiveness in key legislative support functions in the Russian State Duma and Federation Council.
|
| Slovak Republic | Strengthening Parliamentary Processes in Slovakia
| 2000-04 | £400,000 |
Sustained improvement in the Parliament's ability to manage the legislative process and to perform its scrutiny functions.
|
| Somalia | Support to Transitional Federal Parliament
| 2004-09 | c £2,500,000 in 2006-07
| Financial support to MPs to enable Parliament to sit and rehabilitation for temporary parliament.
|
| Sri Lanka | Strengthening prospects for peace by promoting a process of thinking on post conflict issues
| 2000-03 | £225,000 |
To enhance the prospects for a sustainable negotiated settlement by strengthening the capacity of significant actors including parliamentarians to contribute to the peace process.
|
| West Bank and Gaza | Strengthening parliamentary Democracy
| 1998-2002 | £773,110 |
To strengthen the capacity of the Palestinian Legislative Council to serve as a democratic, professional, accountable and responsive parliament.
|
| West Bank and Gaza | Palestinian Legislative Council Library
| 1999-2003 | £388,000 |
To establish a sustainable Parliamentary Library in order to strengthen the access of council members to the information required to better meet the needs of the Palestinian people.
|
| Zambia | | 2005-
| £55,000 | To develop the capacity of Parliament to oversee public resources management to promote democratic governance, transparency and accountability.
|
| Asia | Parliamentarians for Global Action supported Sub-Regional Asian Parliamentary Seminar on HIV/AIDS
| 2004-05 | £14,000 |
To generate increased political will and commitment to address HIV/AIDS in South Asia.
|
| | |
| |
2
Part of larger project-combined with other donors. Back
|
