Andrew
Stunell: I thank the Minister for that and I will welcome
what he brings back to us, but my question was not just a random shot.
The fifth bullet point in paragraph 2.2 on page 6 of the document says
that one of the problems to be overcome is
“Unclear
donor roles, for instance lack of understanding of the terms
‘lead’, ‘active’ and ‘silent’
donors and/or reluctance by donors to fulfil their
roles.” What
we appeared to be told and to see in Bangladesh might be a practical
example of that. As the UK has the largest EU aid contribution in
Bangladesh, it seems paradoxical that we are not even a co-lead in
co-ordinating the donor team.
Mr.
Foster: As I say, I shall have to look in more detail at
the particular circumstances in Bangladesh. The Department for
International Development is happy to continue playing its strong
lead—if not the lead as recognised in this particular document.
Given our support, the fact that we are one of the leading
international bodies in terms of development expenditure and the way in
which we do development on ground, I am confident that we make a real
difference to the people in Bangladesh. I will come back to the hon.
Gentleman later to explain why we do not take the lead facilitating
role in Bangladesh as outlined in the
document.
Mr.
Clappison: Does the Minister know which country is the
recipient of the largest amount of overseas development assistance from
the
EU?
Mr.
Foster: I hope that I will get inspiration to answer that
particular question. With regard to the UK position, we work with a lot
of countries to deliver our aid. If I were to make an informed or
educated guess, I would probably say that Turkey is the
answer.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere
mentioned in his opening speech that with regard to the Paris
declaration, the report indicates that in 2008, the EU as a whole was
off track on at least four of the 10 2010 Paris targets. Paragraph 2.12
on page 5
states: “Noting
that the Operational Framework does not yet cover all four EU aid
effectiveness priorities agreed in previous Council Conclusions, the
Minister”— presumably
this
Minister— “says
that it is proposed that actions on other aid effectiveness commitments
will be agreed and added to the Framework in the
future.” That
seems like a huge amount of work to have to do before this document is
approved at this month’s General Affairs and External Relations
Council. Will the Minister give us a clue about how far that work has
got, and how much more remains to be done? While he has the document
open at that page, perhaps he can explain why, under paragraph 2.13,
the UK has been linked with the Kyrgyz Republic and Rwanda with regard
to the EU code of conduct, as mentioned in the annexe on the
table?
Mr.
Foster: As I said in my initial contribution, we broadly
welcome the operational framework. I think that I used the words
“broadly happy”. We are broadly happy as opposed to
ecstatic because the subjects that we had looked forward to seeing in
the framework have not yet been put in. Mutual accountability for
results and predictability of aid are two such matters. We do not
anticipate the mutual accountability aspect to be added this year, but
in 2010. We expect only the first three chapters to be approved at the
GAERC later this
month.
Andrew
Stunell: This is my last question, and it relates to
paragraph 2.3, which
states: “By
the end of November
2009”— in
other words, in three weeks’
time— “a
network of EU Division of Labour focal points at HQ and country level
in the fast-track
countries” will
have been set up. Is the Minister satisfied that that is a timetable
that can be
kept? 4.49
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 4.59
pm On
resuming—
Andrew
Stunell: I had formulated my question before the Division
and I hope that the Minister will be able to
respond.
Mr.
Foster: In response to the hon. Gentleman’s
question, the Kyrgyz Republic and Rwanda are countries that DFID plays
a lead role in with regard to the fast-track initiative. The reason why
it plays a role in those two countries is because decisions of this
nature tend to be taken in conjunction with the in-country decisions,
so the process is led by the in-country situation. In effect,
therefore, the Kyrgyz Republic and Rwanda would have asked for DFID to
take the lead role on this
issue.
Andrew
Stunell: I appreciate the Minister’s answer, which
I think was given in response to my preceding question. The question
that I put immediately before the Division was about how realistic he
felt it was for these networks of division of labour focal points to be
established by the end of this month, as set out in the paragraph in
bold on page 7.
Mr.
Foster: My understanding of the information that is listed
is that it has already been established. It may need updating and that
will be done on a continual basis. However, that list has been
established and is up and running.
Mr.
Borrow: Following on from my previous question, there has
been considerable criticism in the past of the effectiveness of the use
of EU aid, although I think that there is a general acknowledgement
that that situation has improved in recent years. However, regarding
the targets that have not yet been met by the EU, is my hon. Friend the
Minister able to give any information about the extent to which that
failure is related to the fact that
those targets depend not only on the EU but on the involvement of member
states, because I see this process as being very much a joint process
between the European Union—in terms of the Commission—and
the member states? Consequently, if there is improper co-operation and
participation, that will reduce the effectiveness of this framework
document.
Mr.
Foster: My hon. Friend is right to point out the fact that
it is indeed also up to member states to make a contribution to the
overall EU position of achieving the 10 Paris objectives, or not
achieving them. In that light, what we have been doing is working with
individual member states to try to improve their relative position
towards achievement of the 10 targets.
As an example
of our work, at the beginning of December we expect to sign a
partnership arrangement with the French development agency and the
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to cover, among other things,
co-operation on the implementation of the Paris declaration. We believe
that, once that partnership arrangement has been signed, it will
provide a strong framework for bilateral engagement around the
incentives and blockages that France is currently experiencing in
trying to achieve the 2010 targets.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I want to come back to the important point
made by the hon. Member for South Ribble about outputs versus inputs.
First, however, the Minister still has not explained adequately how the
division of labour issue is dealt with in the annexe on page 33. For
example, I still cannot quite see why the UK, which has one of the
largest and most effective aid programmes, is only linked with the
Republic of Rwanda and the Kyrgyz Republic. By contrast, the
Netherlands is linked with Bangladesh, both as a lead
facilitator—that is set out in the table on page 33—and
as a supporting facilitator. Sweden and the UK are also listed as being
supporting facilitators in Bangladesh. That seems to be a recipe for
some overlaps in the system. Perhaps the Minister could comment on
that.
Mr.
Foster: It is important to recognise the point that I made
with regard to Rwanda and the Kyrgyz Republic, that these agreements
tend to be country-led. Bangladesh, for example, having the co-lead of
the Netherlands and the EC and having at the table a supporting
facilitator from the United Kingdom, would put itself in a strong
position to benefit enormously from the aid from those three partners,
whereas if the UK took the lead role in Bangladesh, which seems to be
common sense from some people’s perspective, there might not
then be the same buy-in from the Netherlands and the EC. I suspect that
Bangladesh, knowing that this will be a local decision, has the best of
both worlds: it has two co-leads and knows that, because of the close
historical links that we have with it, it is always able to call on the
UK as a strong
partner.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I want to come back to the question asked
by the hon. Member for South Ribble about the way that we measure
outputs and effectiveness of aid. In this respect, I agree with the
hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly. DFID has the reputation of being among
the most effective bodies, if not the most effective, in the world in
respect of aid. How will the EU measure its aid
effectiveness, in view of the ever-closer working relationship with
member states? A particular matter is first raised in a bullet point on
page
15: “Lack
of reliable and updated information on donor presence in sectors. The
most reliable data can be found through the OECD/DAC reporting system.
However, due to a lengthy verification process there is always a time
lag (the most recent data currently available are for
2007).” I
would have thought that DFID had a more reliable measuring system than
those data systems to which the EU as a whole is working, which are two
years out of
date. I
am even more worried about paragraph 3.1 on page
20: “According
to the 2008 OECD/DAC Monitoring Survey of the Paris Declaration, 36% of
partner countries have improved the quality of public financial
management...systems.” That
prompts the question of what is happening to the other
countries—almost two thirds of them. Have they not improved
their financial reporting systems? I hope that the Minister can confirm
that the UK is in the 36 per cent. that
have. If
we do not have a reliable reporting system in the EU, I do not see how
its aid can be as effective as DFID’s. Indeed, it is a big
lacuna. Perhaps the Minister will comment on
that.
Mr.
Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about
the validity of the analysis of aid effectiveness. Yes, the measurement
in respect of the Paris declaration, which was based on 2007 figures
and published in 2008, would appear to be a couple of years out of
date, but other mechanisms are used to monitor the effectiveness of aid
regularly. For example, in terms of the European Commission, which is a
key component of what we are discussing today, DFID will look at using
multi-donor
assessments. The
Multilateral Organization Performance Assessment Network, which has the
handy acronym, MOPAN, is a multi-donor initiative that assesses the
effectiveness of the development aid of bodies such as the EC. MOPAN
carried out a review in 2008. There are also regular OECD peer reviews
of the EC. So it would be wrong to suggest that there has only ever
been one review of the effectiveness of aid being distributed by the
European
Commission.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: The National Audit Office was critical
about the effectiveness of multilateral agencies. It found
that: “information
on what multilaterals do with their funding is frequently of limited
use” and
that “it
can be difficult to determine what outputs have been achieved by the
funding”. DFID
publishes multilateral development effectiveness summaries, but admits
that they
“do not measure
actual development results on the ground or the merits of the
organisation’s development
objectives.” I
ask again, how effective does the Minister feel that the EU’s
measuring process is? How much of DFID’s own effectiveness
measurement has been improved in the last year or
so?
Mr.
Foster: I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and
Committee members, providing details of how we are measuring the
effectiveness of EU multilateral spend, along the lines that he has
described. In that letter I will also describe in detail how the UK has
responded.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: Another important subject that is much
discussed by the aid community is direct aid. Paragraph 1 on page 35
refers
to “technical
co-operation for improving
capability.” We
all know that the EU target is that 50 per cent. of its
country-to-country aid should be direct budget aid to the country
involved. How was that figure arrived at, and does the Minister think
that it is always universally right?
I have two
examples to assist the Minister in answering. We have moved away from
giving any central aid support to Zimbabwe, and we give Afghanistan
about 90 per cent. central budget support. Does the Minister think that
it will be possible, within EU mechanisms, to deal with that aspect of
the matter case by case, country by country, as we would advocate, or
will we be stuck with the 50 per cent.
figure?
Mr.
Foster: We use country systems only where a partner
Government is committed to poverty reduction, the improvement of public
financial management, and human rights—and where doing so can
achieve greater impact than other forms of aid. We assess the risks
carefully and have assessments undertaken by independent
experts.
Where
necessary, if it is found that we have not safeguarded money as well as
we should have done, those agreements are pulled, but I remind the hon.
Gentleman that the 2008 National Audit Office study found that budget
support had enabled partner Governments to increase expenditure on
priority areas, and had helped to expand access to essential public
services and improve public financial management in partner
countries. Thus
there is a real gain to be had from going in the direction of budget
support. For us, the best way to strengthen Government systems is to
use them to deliver our development expenditure, with the goal of
getting individuals in-country to hold their Governments to account for
the way money is spent and for public financial
management.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: Paragraph 4 on page 36 mentions the
proposal to
support “the
role of parliaments, civil society, the media, audit institutions, and
public procurement monitoring agencies, in holding governments
accountable for public
expenditure.” We
welcome that, and we welcome the move, where there is
country-to-country support, to give at least a small part of that
budget to helping to strengthen the role of parliaments, civil society
and the media. Indeed, that proposal featured in the
Government’s White Paper.
However,
little mention is made in the whole document of civil
society—whether in-country civil society organisations and NGOs
or civil society NGOs in this country. I am sure that the Minister
would agree that aid effectiveness is hugely enhanced by the role of
civil society, as well as by bilateral and multilateral aid, and,
increasingly, nowadays, by multilateral corporations,
through the Community Foundation Network. However, I do not see much in
the report about how all those organisations will be harnessed together
to enhance in-country aid. As a
supplementary, allied question, how does all the EU procedure involve
closer linking with other, powerful bilateral aid programmes, such as
USAID or Japanese programmes? It is vital that we get all the
organisations together to make sure that our aid in-country is as
effective as it can
be.
| 
