CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THREE
QUARTERS OF
THE WORLD'S
POOR ARE
IN RURAL
AREAS WHERE
POVERTY MUST
BE REDUCED
IF THE
MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT
GOALS ARE
TO BE
MET. DFID could not establish
the trend in its assistance to the rural poor over recent years.
Rural areas are usually significantly poorer than non-rural areas,
and the NAO estimated that the rural poor are receiving less assistance
per head than other poor people. DFID should find out what share
of its bilateral aid accrues to the benefit of the rural poor
and adjust its programmes to address their needs.
2. DFID DOES
NOT KNOW
WHAT PROPORTION
OF ITS
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE
IS SPENT
ON THE
RURAL POOR.
Its two largest contributions are to the European Union, which
does not have a strong focus on the poorest, and to the World
Bank, which found in 2003 that only 25% of its funds were spent
in rural areas. DFID should encourage multilaterals to follow
the World Bank's example and assess their impact on the rural
poor, and to remedy any imbalance in effort. It should also increase
training and technical assistance to build capacity of those multilaterals
it has assessed as weaker but which are crucial to rural poverty
reduction, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation.
3. DFID DOES
NOT KNOW
ENOUGH ABOUT
THE EFFECTS
OF ITS
AID ON
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
OR ON
RATES OF
URBANISATION. DFID recognises
the links between rural and urban populations but has not evaluated
the impact of assistance on patterns of economic migration, so
cannot tailor its assistance to minimise harmful effects. DFID
should work with other development partners to increase its knowledge
about the effects of aid on patterns of work and migration to
the cities.
4. DFID HAS
ATTEMPTED TO
INFLUENCE TRADE
REFORM AND
REDUCE AGRICULTURAL
SUBSIDIES IN
THE DEVELOPED
WORLD BUT
SO FAR
WITH LITTLE
SUCCESS. DFID's new responsibilities
for UK trade policy and increased 'aid for trade' funding provide
an opportunity which it should use to secure greater benefits
for the rural poor by increasing international and local trade.
5. HALF
OF DFID COUNTRY
PROGRAMME TEAMS
USING BUDGET
SUPPORT ARE
NOT SATISFIED
WITH THE
EFFORTS OF
DEVELOPING COUNTRY
GOVERNMENTS TO
TACKLE RURAL
POVERTY. DFID should analyse each
developing government's resource allocation as part of its monitoring
and appraisal of budget support programmes to identify any causes
of concern. It should then use its budget support as a lever to
improve the developing nation's emphasis on rural poverty issues.
6. POOR
DISSEMINATION AND
LOW USE
OF EXISTING
RESEARCH HAS
LED DFID TO
SPEND AN
ADDITIONAL £37.5 MILLION
TO ENCOURAGE
PEOPLE TO
USE IT.
DFID regards research as a "global good" that can be
accessed by other researchers and developing country officials
direct. But their own expert advisors in-country are not fully
aware of research findings, which represents a missed opportunity
to secure maximum value from the research. DFID should improve
dissemination of its research results to its own country staff
and periodically check the levels of awareness achieved.
7. DFID DOES
NOT HAVE
A CLEAR
PICTURE OF
THE COSTS
OF SERVICE
DELIVERY IN
RURAL AREAS.
The unit cost of many services, including health and education,
is likely to be higher in rural areas, but DFID has little data
on how much higher. So it is poorly placed to assess the equity
of resource allocation, to judge the poverty reduction achievable
with available resources, or to compare performance. DFID should
secure better cost analysis, either from developing country management
information systems or if necessary by commissioning specific
studies where gaps are most serious.
8. CIVIL
SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS
(CSOS) HAVE
OFTEN PERFORMED
BETTER THAN
DEVELOPING COUNTRY
GOVERNMENTS IN
PROVIDING BENEFITS
FOR THE
POOREST, BUT
DFID HAS DECREASED
THE PERCENTAGE
OF ITS
FUNDING FOR
CSOS. This Committee has previously
recommended that DFID should assess how well beneficiary
country funding is targeted at the poorest, and promote
increased funding through civil society organisations where they
are most effective. DFID's analysis of developing country
governments' poverty reduction plans and performance needs
to highlight deficiencies in coverage or cost effectiveness of
services for the rural poor, and promote the use of civil society
organisations to fill these gaps.
9. DFID DOES
NOT FULLY
ASSESS HOW
FAR PROJECT
BENEFITS CAN
BE SUSTAINED
FOLLOWING PROJECT
COMPLETION, EITHER
IN COMPLETION
REPORTS OR
SUBSEQUENT PROJECT
EVALUATIONS. In rural areas, often
the poorest areas with the weakest capacity, the durability of
project benefits is particularly at risk. DFID should assess the
extent of enduring benefits after project completion and periodically
analyse the results to identify common risks or success factors.
10. DFID'S
PROFESSIONAL STAFF
SPEND LESS
THAN A
WEEK IN
RURAL AREAS
EACH YEAR.
DFID should build on the good practice identified in Tanzania,
where staff spend an average of eleven days in the field, to ensure
that key programme and advisory staff spend sufficient time in
rural areas to understand rural development priorities and to
assess what is being achieved through DFID's funding.
11. IN
GIVING EVIDENCE
TO THE
COMMITTEE THE
ACCOUNTING OFFICER
AND SUPPORTING
WITNESSES DISPUTED
THE ACCURACY
OF PARTS
OF THE
C&AG'S REPORT.
There is a longstanding convention that the facts in the C&AG's
report and their presentation should be agreed with the Department
unless specific reservations are made in the report, so that Committee
hearings are not sidetracked by disputed facts. We expect all
Accounting Officers to adhere to this convention.
| 
