Appendix: Government response
The Government welcomes the International Development
Committee's report and is grateful for their timely consideration
of this critical issue. We are pleased the report appreciates
the UK's work to protect the poor against the impact of the downturn
and welcome continued support in this crucial area. The report
provides clear and useful recommendations on moving forward.
Impact of the downturn on developing countries
[Paragraph 23] The rapidly changing nature of
the economic crisis makes it essential that DFID is able to respond
quickly and flexibly to the different impacts on partner countries.
To do this, it needs reliable and frequently updated information.
We are impressed by steps DFID has taken to date to analyse the
impact on developing countries and its recent efforts to ensure
research findings are communicated to policy-makers through the
creation of the Global Poverty Alert System. However, the first
findings from the new Alert System are not expected to be available
until September. Given the real and serious effects that the downturn
is having on the poorest people in the world, we would expect
DFID to take this initiative forward with greater urgency. We
recommend that the Department works with the UN to ensure that
the benefits of this new system are available to inform high level
political decision-making within the next few months. We also
request the Department to provide further details, in its response
to this Report, on how the Alert System is operating in practice,
how it will influence policy and the extent to which DFID is able
to respond quickly and flexibly to increased pressure.
DFID is grateful for the committee's recognition
of the steps taken to analyse the impact on developing countries
and have put steps in place to ensure this agenda is taken forward
with high priority. DFID agrees with the recommendation and has
been working closely with the UN since January 2009 to support
development of the new alert system that is able to provide timely
indications of how exogenous shocks are affecting the welfare
of the most marginalised populations and countries. The Global
Impact and Vulnerability Alert System (GIVAS) is being led by
the Deputy Secretary General's office and was launched by the
UN Secretary General on 23rd September. DFID has provided £1
million for technical assistance and will continue support and
monitor GIVAS.
The first GIVAS report was presented to the UN General
Assembly comprising a summary analysis of broad trends in how
the lives of poor and vulnerable populations are being affected
by the global financial crisis. Key finding of the first GIVAS
report include:
- The global economic crisis
is only now starting for hundreds of millions of people around
the globe;
- The near poor, who have just climbed out of poverty,
are sliding back into poverty;
- Existing social protection programmes may prove
insufficient; there is pressure on social sector budgets.
It is intended that feedback, and additional dedicated
research commissioned by GIVAS, will help shape the way that future
reports can directly support national policy-makers and international
actions.
The GIVAS consists of a Data Platform and will produce
a series of Global Alert products, such as 'situation reports',
'buzzer alerts' and 'eye witness reports'. The data platform brings
together lower and higher frequency (real time), quantitative
and qualitative data. The GIVAS team is coordinating a network
of analysts from collaborating UN agencies.
DFID continues to maintain momentum behind the international
response to the global financial downturn and has led the way
to keep the spotlight on development. We have established the
Poverty Response Team within the Policy and Research Division
to focus on our commitment to protect the poorest people in the
current economic downturn. The team will work to strengthen and
disseminate tools and evidence on social protection to partner
governments, develop further research, support international policy
coherence and work to maintain political momentum. DFID will be
spending approximately £150 million bilaterally each financial
year for the next two years on social protection.
Responding to the crisis
[Paragraph 33] We commend DFID's focus on funding
social protection programmes which have been shown to play a vital
role in protecting the poorest people in the poorest countries
from the worst effects of economic crises. However, DFID must
work closely with partner governments to ensure coverage of these
programmes is sufficient to reach those with the greatest need.
DFID agrees and is fully committed to working closely
with partner governments to ensure their decisions for protecting
the poorest people through social assistance are evidence based
and appropriately targeted. We are currently supporting 50 million
people in over 20 countries through social protection and safety
nets.
For example during the last year DFID has provided
US$2.5 million through the World Bank to support the Benazir Income
Support Programme in Pakistan. The programme provides direct monthly
income support to approximately 3.2 million vulnerable families,
in response to food price inflation. DFID Pakistan funds are being
used to provide strategic technical support to improve targeting
and distribution mechanisms. DFID also works closely with partner
governments in Kenya, Ghana, and Mozambique to ensure that large-scale
social protection programmes reach the most vulnerable, particularly
orphans and vulnerable children.
In the last 6 months we have expanded our support
to capacity building for design and implementation, including
south-south learning on social protection. Our priorities have
been to widen engagement of regional institutions, especially
in Africa and ASEAN countries, and increase availability of technical
and policy advice in response to demand. DFID is supporting Government
of Brazil experts to provide technical assistance to Kenya, Ghana,
Mozambique and Angola, to build central registries of recipients,
and strengthen monitoring and evaluation systems.
We are actively engaged with the World Bank to ensure
that our commitment of £200 million—approved by the
Secretary of State in March 2009 to help the World Bank scale
up social protection programmes—is used effectively. We
have already provided the Bank with an additional £2 million
of grant technical assistance to support the design of new social
protection programmes and to help capture and share lessons and
good practice that have potential for application in other IDA
[World Bank International Development Association] settings.
As a result of our £200 million commitment,
we are seeing a strong response from the World Bank which is now
fast tracking and front loading support to social protection.
We have seen a three-fold increase in lending to social protection
from approximately $1.5 billion per annum (2006-2008) to $4.5
billion in 2009. Those countries which have benefited include
Afghanistan, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Rwanda. The DFID
offices in these Public Service Agreement countries are monitoring
this scaling up.
[Paragraph 37] Donor investment in infrastructure
not only provides developing countries with a source of employment
but will also enable them to emerge from this recession with a stronger
economy. We welcome DFID's decision to provide significant funds
for infrastructure projects as part of its response to the
downturn. The scale of the North-South Corridor project in Africa
gives it huge potential to boost trade and economic development
in the continent. We request the Department, in its response to
this Report, to provide an update on progress with the project.
DFID welcomes the focus in the report on infrastructure
investment, highlighting the development benefits that can be
realised in the long term and in the current economic crisis through
the creation of more jobs. The Department's new White Paper —'Building
our Common Future'—similarly highlights the value of infrastructure
investment, especially in a regional context to help accelerate
the integration of Africa's small and fragmented economies. The
UK will spend £1 billion over four years on regional transport
and energy infrastructure.
The Department has now approved a £100 million
programme, the new TradeMark Southern Africa. This will facilitate
trade and promote regional integration across east and southern
Africa. Institutional arrangements are currently being put in
place through the Regional Economic Communities and the Development
Bank of Southern Africa to implement North-South Corridor projects.
These include:
- Measures for leveraging the
$1.2 billion committed at the North-South Corridor Conference;
- Joint public / private road and rail projects.
These projects include elaborating measures with national roads
authorities for maintaining roads along the North-South Corridor
for a 20-year period.
In addition the North-South Corridor Aid-for-Trade
pilot programme[1] was
presented at the World Trade Organisation's July 2009 global review
meeting in Geneva. Here it was showcased as an example for implementing
Aid-for-Trade initiatives.
[Paragraph 40] We fully support DFID's decision
to fund the Global Trade Liquidity Programme. Ensuring the
availability of trade finance is an important part of supporting
small and medium sized businesses in poor countries and thereby
sustaining economic development. It is vital that the aim for
the Programme to be operational in May is achieved. We request
that DFID, in its response to this Report, provides us with an
update on the amount of funding which has been disbursed, and
to which countries.
DFID welcomes the support for the Trade Liquidity
Programme. The first phase of the Global Trade Liquidity Programme
was launched in Geneva on 6th July 2009. The UK was amongst the
first set of donors to meet their London Summit commitments, contributing
£245 million (£200 million from DFID and £45 million
from CDC Group). The IFC [International Finance Corporation, part
of the World Bank Group] have begun to disburse funding through
the Utilisation Banks (DFID funding is likely to be released in
the next couple of weeks). The IFC will monitor country utilisation
rates of the programme on a quarterly basis.
The UK contribution will provide trade finance for
up to £1.2 billion worth of trade, specifically targeted
at developing countries, over the next 2 years.
The GTLP has been set up to specifically address
the shortage of trade finance in developing countries and emerging
markets. This means that Low and Middle Countries (LICs and MICs)
will be the sole beneficiaries of the programme. In the first
phase of the programme, it is estimated that somewhere between
35-40% of GTLP funds will go to Africa.
Since its launch on 6th July 2009 IFC have been working
to match donors funding with partner banks and to finalise the
first 9 facilities under phase one of the programme. Disbursements
for the first four committed facilities have now begun and trade
finance is starting to flow to developing countries. It
is too early to monitor the specific beneficiaries of the programme
and this will very much depend on the demand and utilization however
the first phase due to the partners that are participating in
the programme is expected to have a strong Africa focus. The
IFC will publish their first monitoring report towards the end
of the year.
The UK is taking every opportunity to encourage other
G20 members to contribute to the programme, DFID's White Paper
pledged support to the programme and DFID will continue to monitor
its progress and impact going forward, including disbursements
to developing countries and small and medium sized businesses.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO DATE
| Country | Amount
|
| G20 members
|
| UK | $330 million (£200 million) - DFID
$75 million (£45 million) - CDC
|
| Canada | $200 million
|
| Dutch | $50 million
|
| Saudi Arabia | $300 million
|
| Japan | $1.5 billion
|
| G20 TOTAL | $2.46 billion
|
| Non-G20 Contributions
|
| African Development Bank
| $500 million |
| IFC | $1 billion
|
| TOTAL ALL | $3.96 billion
|
Outcomes of the G20 Summit
[Paragraph 43] The funding commitments made at the G20 London
Summit are very welcome. However, uncertainty and lack of
clarity remain on the detail of how the pledges will be delivered.
We recommend that the UK Government maintain pressure on G20
partners to honour their commitments and on the international
financial institutions to ensure that the benefits of these
commitments are felt by poor countries at the earliest
opportunity.
The Government agrees it is crucial that the G20
London Summit pledges are honoured. Consequently the Government
has played a lead role in maintaining pressure on G20 members
and the International Financial Institutions to ensure that the
London Summit financing commitments to the poorest countries are
delivered. G20 members pledged at the London Summit to "provide
$50 billion to support social protection, boost trade and safeguard
development in low income countries". There has already been
considerable progress:
- The IMF has now met its commitment
to double access rights for Low Income Countries, resulting in
$4bn in finance. Countries such as Tanzania, Kenya and Mozambique
are already benefiting from the increased finance.
- The IMF has delivered new Special Drawing Rights
(SDRs) allocations which provides $21bn to LICs. The UK is leading
the agenda to explore how the increased SDR allocations can be
used to make even more finance available to LICs.
- The IFC has so far raised $2.5bn for the Global
Trade Liquidity Programme against the $3-4bn G20 target. This
includes a £245 million contribution from the UK (DFID and
CDC). We are continuing to push G20 members to ensure that the
target is reached.
- The additional $6bn financing from the World
Bank and other development banks for the private sector in the
poorest countries is also available now.
We will continue to place pressure on the IFIs to
ensure that all financing commitment to the poorest countries
are rapidly delivered.
[Paragraph 50] We agree with the Secretary of
State that it was in everyone's interest for the IMF to be
recapitalised. But this, in itself, is not enough to support developing
countries through the downturn. The UK needs to continue
to engage with the IMF to ensure that this additional money
is rapidly made available to poor countries which need it.
Increasing access limits is an important first step. DFID must
also ensure that the conditions attached to IMF loans are reduced
and that they are consistent with the aim of reducing poverty
and promoting growth in the world's poorest countries. The sale
of IMF gold reserves seems a sensible way to increase the concessionality
of the rate at which IMF loans are made. We request that
DFID, in response to this Report, provides us with more details
on progress with the sale.
The Government agrees that the conditions attached
to IMF loans must be reduced and consistent with poverty reduction
and DFID is working actively to ensure this. To enable this, the
Government and UK NGOs led the way in calling for wholesale reform
of the IMF's approach to conditionality. In March the IMF agreed
major reforms to its conditionality policy, which applies to its
programmes in all countries. Structural policy measures are no
longer used as binding conditions, instead they will only be used
as benchmarks to monitor progress. So the IMF no longer bases
its programme financing decisions on countries' policies such
as approaches to privatisation and capital market liberalisation.
In addition to the ending of binding structural conditionality,
the IMF has demonstrated flexibility on other issues, such as
appropriate levels of fiscal deficits for countries. For example
80% of its programmes now support poor countries with higher
deficits—an average of 2% of GDP higher—to enable
them to manage the effects of the crisis.
The priority for the IMF's help to poor countries
during the crisis is to provide rapid, substantial, flexible and
additional concessional finance. In the year since the onset of
the crisis last September the IMF has committed new finance of
$3.4 billion to 26 poor countries through the reformed Exogenous
Shocks Facility and the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility.
This is nearly six times the average annual level of IMF lending
to poor countries in the three years before the crisis.
At this year's IMF Spring Meetings the Chancellor
announced that a temporary reduction in interest rates to zero
for concessional lending to low-income countries (LICs) had been
agreed. This will apply until December 2011, after which rates
will be reviewed every two years. There have been a number of
Board discussions on how the IMF should take forward the G20 commitments,
including gold sales. Proposals discussed by the Board enable
the IMF to provide an additional $10 billion in concessional resources
to the poorest countries as we had sought. A new financing package
for LICs has been agreed. This will provide capacity to deliver
$17 billion in concessional finance to LICs over 2009-2014, including
$8 billion in 2009 and 2010. This package incorporates the effects
of doubling access and extra capacity from gold sales in line
with the G20 call. It compares with average finance to LICs of
$1 billion per year over 2000-2008. So it provides more than $10
billion additional finance for LICs over six years, with $6 billion
additional in two years. We are pleased with this, which represents
a significant boost to the Fund's capacity.
The resourcing for this draws on finance from a number
of sources, including from the proceeds of gold sales. The Board
has recently approved the sale of up to 403.3 metric tonnes,
about one-eighth of the Fund's total gold holdings. The Fund will
ensure the sales are conducted under sufficient safeguards to
avoid disruption of the gold market. More information about the
modalities of the planned gold sales can be found on the IMF's
website.
[Paragraph 53] We agree that the multilateral
development banks, and particularly the World Bank, should
make the most effective use of the funds they already have on
their balance sheets to maximise poverty reduction outcomes.
At a time when other donors are having to take hard decisions
on spending, it is clearly welcome that the Banks can increase
their lending by $100 billion. DFID has pressed for this and we
are pleased that it has won the argument. It should now maintain
its engagement with the Banks to ensure funds are disbursed
rapidly to poor countries most affected by the downturn.
DFID welcomes the support for increased spending
by the multilateral development banks at this time and will continue
to engage actively with the banks to ensure rapid responses for
poor countries. At the London Summit G20 Leaders agreed to support
an increase in lending of at least $100 billion by the Multilateral
Development Banks (MDBs). MDB management and shareholders in each
institution have looked at a range of options to increase lending
volumes and effectiveness of their crisis response. Recent reports
to the G20 suggest that the MDBs will exceed the target with additional
commitments for crisis response of over $115 billion. The MDBs
have made positive moves such as allowing countries to draw down
a greater proportion of future assistance (frontloading) and fast-tracking
new commitments through to approval.
DFID's White Paper commits the UK to maintaining
pressure on the MDBs and we continue to press the importance of
MDB resources being delivered quickly. This may mean agreeing
more budget support, as this is fast-disbursing and helps Governments
to deliver on their current spending plans. We welcome the moves
at the African Development Bank to lift the cap on the proportion
of resources provided in this way, and press other banks to do
likewise.
The Government also continues to emphasise the critical
importance of ensuring that each bank makes the best possible
use of their existing resources, and welcome the on-going discussions
between management and shareholders on this issue. At the same
time, discussions have begun in several banks on whether there
is a need to increase their capital, in line with the G20 commitment
in London to ensure that the MDBs are adequately financed. The
UK will continue to engage with MDBs to take this agenda forward.
[Paragraph 57] We are glad that the World Bank
is becoming a more agile institution which can respond more
rapidly to the needs of developing countries. However, much progress remains
to be made by the international financial institutions (IFIs)
to ensure that the gap between approving funds and disbursing
them is as short as possible. DFID has played a leading role
to date in pushing for these changes and it is the largest contributor
to the World Bank's International Development Association. It
is entitled to continue to press the IFIs to improve their
performance in this regard.
The Government agrees with this recommendation and
the belief that progress is being made. The Government works closely
with all the IFIs and has clear demands on their reform agenda.
As a result clear progress is being made: the World Bank responded
rapidly to the food crisis, committing over $1.2 billion in over
30 countries under the most accelerated procedures in the World
Bank's history. Some projects were approved in as little as five
days. As part of their response to the financial crisis, the World
Bank set up the IDA fast track facility; 10 countries (Armenia,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Vietnam,
Mongolia, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria and Sao Tome and
Principe) have benefited from new resources being agreed under
faster procedures. In around 20 countries IDA assistance has
been frontloaded at the request of the Government.
Elsewhere, there have been some significant efforts
by the MDBs to increase disbursement rates. For example the African
Development Bank (AfDB) disbursements in the first quarter of
2009 were four times higher than in the first quarter of 2008
(albeit from a low base) and the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (IBRD) disbursements in 2009 were 76% higher than
in 2008. But we recognise the central importance of resources
being delivered quickly, and in our engagement with the MDBs,
we continually emphasise the necessity of sustained and increased
effort on this issue.
The Government believes that the MDBs should reform
their procedures and approaches to speed up the design, approval
and implementation of new programmes more broadly—not just
in response to crises. In our recent White Paper we committed
ourselves to pressing for changes at the World Bank that will
reduce the average time to design and approve a new project to
12 months.
[Paragraph 65] If developing countries are going
to be properly represented in decisions on how the global community
responds to the current economic crisis, reform of the international
financial institutions (IFIs) needs to take place without further
delay. The UK Government clearly understands the need for reform
and we accept that it is not prepared simply to "write a
cheque and walk away". But the timescale set out at the London
summit, with no new reforms to be agreed, let alone implemented,
until next year at the earliest, fails to respond to the urgent
need. We reiterate our view that DFID, as one of the highest donors
to the World Bank, must continue to use its leverage at every
opportunity to press for swifter reform of the IFIs, particularly
in relation to the representation of developing countries on the
World Bank board.
The Government agrees reform of the IFIs needs to
be moved along with the greatest of urgency and will continue
to use all instruments available to push this agenda forward.
DFID's recent White Paper puts firm pressure on IFIs to improve
governance, accountability and performance. Some progress has
been made in the past 12 months on voting and governance reform
in the World Bank. At the 2008 Annual Meetings, a first phase
of governance and voice reform was agreed. This saw a doubling
of basic votes (which mainly benefits poor countries), a third
seat for Sub-Saharan Africa and language on Presidential selection.
A second phase, to rebalance the voting weight of high, middle
and low income countries was agreed, with a timetable running
to 2011. At the G20 Pittsburgh summit, leaders stressed the importance
of adopting a dynamic formula at the World Bank which primarily
reflects countries' evolving economic weight and the World Bank's
development mission, and agreed to an increase of at least 3%
of voting power for developing and transition countries, to the
benefit of under-represented countries. We will use the Annual
Meetings in Istanbul to move discussions forward.
The Government pressed for a faster timetable for
voting reform at the London Summit, and we were pleased that Bank
Governors endorsed the proposal at the World Bank Spring Meetings.
This acceleration brings forward the next phase of reform by
a year. Work is well underway, and Governors will review and
discuss issues related to voice and representation at the Annual
Meetings in October. We continue to emphasise the importance of
this discussion focusing broadly on how to improve the voice of
the poorest countries; this will require more than voting reform.
However reaching agreement by Spring 2010 is an ambitious timetable
given the complexity of issues and even the number of stakeholders
involved.
[Paragraph 69] We welcome the creation of the
World Bank's Vulnerability Fund—developing countries need
large and dedicated sums to support them through the downturn.
We do, however, agree with the Secretary of State that setting
a target of dedicating 0.7% of stimulus packages to this new Fund
could cause confusion and undermine international resolve to achieve
the long-standing and much more ambitious commitment to allocate
0.7% of Gross National Income to official development assistance
by 2015. Nevertheless, we believe that the premise which underlies
the World Bank President's proposal is valid: if rich countries
can find substantial sums to boost their own economies, they should
recognise the pressing need in poor countries and identify dedicated
sums, additional to existing pledges, to assist them. We invite
the Secretary of State, in response to this Report, to indicate
how the UK is responding to the World Bank President's proposal.
The Government agrees that there is a pressing need
for poor countries at this time and consequently despite a tightening
fiscal climate in the 2009 budget the UK re-affirmed
its commitment to ODA [Official Development Assistance] levels
to 2010/11 made at CSR [Comprehensive Spending Review] in
2007. We are also keeping under review the case for accelerated
support as a result of the downturn through our bilateral country
programmes. We have already front-loaded some funds to a number
of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and will do so more widely
if this is needed and we can make a difference. We also continue
to place growth at the heart of our approach to sustained poverty
reduction. Over the next three years we will ensure at least £1
billion a year in support to growth and trade in developing countries
to generate incomes and jobs.
We continue to have concerns about the World
Bank President's proposal and prefer to continue to advocate for
significant additional resources for the IMF to support poor countries.
DFID's White Paper does however commit the UK to considering a
long term crisis response facility with the World Bank to deal
with shocks. Our leadership of the G20 summit also agreed $250
billion on trade credit through credit agencies and the multilateral
development banks to ensure trade is not affected by fears of
non-payment for exports and imports.
Donor support for development
[Paragraph 72] We welcome the UK Government's
clear determination to fulfil its pledge to allocate 0.7% of Gross
National Income to Official Development Assistance by 2013. The
increase in DFID's funding of nearly £1 billion in the next
financial year, confirmed in the 2009 Budget, is a significant
step towards achieving this goal and sends an important message
to other donors and to partner countries about the UK's commitment
to international development.
The Government agrees it is important to send a clear
message to other donors and partner countries that the UK is committed
to achieving the 0.7% target. To this end the Government plans
to pass legislation that will commit the UK to allocating
0.7% of GNI to ODA. The commitment to 0.7% ODA/GNI was also restated
in the recent White Paper, 'Eliminating World Poverty: Building
our Common Future' and we will use our position in the G8, Europe
and the UN to continue to press other countries to deliver their
promises on financing and to accelerate progress towards the MDGs
[Millennium Development Goals]. We will push for a mechanism in
the G8 through which countries report on what they have delivered
and in the EU we will support reporting by the European Commission
on progress by member states.
[Paragraph 79] We accept that currency fluctuations
are a normal occurrence with which all development agencies have
to deal. However, the movements in sterling in recent months have
been the most extreme in many years and this is bound to have
an impact on DFID's spending power. We request that DFID, in its
response to this Report, provides us with an update on how its
budget for the current financial year has been adjusted to cope
with this challenge. We would also be grateful to know the outcome
of its deliberations on the Treasury's proposal to allow Departments
to ensure the predictability of foreign exchange commitments by
entering into hedging transactions.
Movements in sterling have continued in the months
since the IDC report was concluded. The value of sterling was
significantly higher in the first part of this financial year
than in the last part of last financial year, although still below
levels at the time when DFID's three year spending plans were
finalised in early 2008.
Most of DFID's allocations and commitments are denominated
in sterling. DFID does not generally adjust these allocations
or commitments in response to exchange rate movements - either
to increase aid when sterling depreciates or to reduce aid when
sterling appreciates. DFID's programme allocations to many recipients
are however rising this year as DFID's overall programme rises.
The extent to which the value of UK aid to a country
is affected by exchange rate movements depends on the use to which
the aid is put, the currency in which goods and services are purchased
and the price of those goods and services. Where aid is used
to procure goods and services in sterling, the value of UK aid
to the recipient will remain constant. Aid may also be used to
procure goods and services in the recipient's own currency, or
in other regional currencies, against which the value of sterling
may not have moved to the same extent as it has against the dollar
and the euro. Prices of key commodities also impact on the overall
value of developing country government resources. The fall in
prices of oil, food and other commodities as the international
economy adjusts to the economic downturn will partly offset the
reduced value of sterling aid.
The UK share of EC aid programmes is denominated
in euro. The additional sterling costs of meeting EU payments
this year will reduce the Departmental Unallocated Provision which
would otherwise have been available for other purposes.
DFID's overseas offices also meet local expenses
in local currency, and are meeting the additional costs arising
from the changing value of sterling through additional efficiency
savings and by drawing resources from our administration contingency
reserve.
DFID has not yet reached any decision to enter into
hedging transactions. We recognise the additional stability in
budget planning that a firm contract price to buy or sell currencies
would provide. However the overall management and transaction
costs need to be considered against the risk of adverse price
movements in the currency to ensure overall value for money.
[Paragraph 82] Whilst we accept the need for the
UK Government to reduce public expenditure, the announcement of
further departmental efficiency savings reinforces our concerns
about DFID's ability to meet its objectives of poverty reduction
in the world's poorest countries. As we have pointed out, DFID
is unusual in being a Department with an increasing budget and
a reducing headcount. The countries in which it now operates are
increasingly more fragile ones and therefore likely to be more
labour-intensive. We reiterate that it would be regrettable if
"efficiency" measures actually made the Department less
effective. We shall return to this subject in our inquiry later
this year into the DFID Annual Report 2009.
DFID agrees that ensuring the Department remains
effective is vital. However DFID has a good track record in meeting
the challenges of a rising budget with falling administration
costs and has continued to perform strongly in Whitehall and in
international organisational effectiveness benchmarking exercises.
The performance of our portfolio of programmes has improved despite
the challenge of managing a rising budget alongside decreasing
staffing and the shift into fragile states. DFID's Portfolio Quality
Index has increased from 71% in 2006/07 to 73% in 2008/09—this
score is a measure of how successful programmes of £1 million
or more have been in meeting their original objectives. We will
achieve the £155 million of efficiency savings in 2010/11
while still delivering international promises and protecting front-line
delivery.
We have a clear strategy to address the new set of
challenges through the Department's organisational change agenda,
'Making it Happen', and the new White Paper sets out a clear commitment
to prioritise and focus Government's efforts where we can have
most impact. We are driving forward change and prioritisation
in a number of key areas:
- Making it Happen is building
a DFID that is effective and resilient to the future challenges,
focusing on more effective use of our money and people to get
better development results;
- Our 'Money' agenda is helping
us achieve greater value for money from our administration costs.
This includes a reduction in corporate services staff by investing
in e-enabled systems, co-location and shared services with FCO,
and collaborative procurement in travel and IT;
- Our 'People' agenda is helping us manage the
headcount reductions by getting more from our people through stronger
performance management, better strategic work force planning,
a more flexible postings system, and more working with others
in HM Government and beyond;
- DFID has made tough resource allocation choices.
As a result 90% of our bilateral expenditure is now in 23 countries.
More expenditure through effective multilaterals allows us to
expand our reach while utilising a lower proportion of staffing;
- DFID is managing the greater challenges of fragile
states by putting a higher proportion of our staff into these
country offices, by adapting our business models, and has undertaken
a workforce review for staffing in these environments;
- We are currently developing our response to HM
Treasury's Operational Efficiency Programme. This includes exploring
savings through business process re-engineering and the costs
of our UK estates.
[Paragraph 85] We note that the OECD's projections
of aid expenditure by Development Assistance Committee countries
continue to show an upward trend. We are, however, concerned
that these may be over-optimistic and do not provide a true reflection
of countries' intentions. We are alarmed by Italy's decision
to make a substantial reduction in its ODA budget, particularly
in the context of Italy holding the G8 presidency. Its actions
could send out the wrong signals about donors' intentions and cause
development assistance to drop off the international agenda. We
urge the UK Government to make strenuous efforts to ensure
that assistance to poor countries remains at the heart of
international discussions held during the ongoing economic crisis
and thereby build on the achievements which the London summit
delivered for developing countries.
The Government agrees that assistance to poor countries
must remain at the heart of international discussions and has
made the delivery of ODA targets a key issue for the follow-up.
At the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, leaders reaffirmed their commitment
to meet the Millennium Development Goals and ODA pledges, including
commitments on Aid for Trade, debt relief, and those made at Gleneagles,
especially to sub-Saharan Africa, to 2010 and beyond.
[Paragraph 90] Whilst the UK Government has indicated
that it will honour its commitments to developing countries,
despite the onset of the recession, not all countries have done
the same. We would encourage DFID to use every opportunity to
press donor partners to continue to meet the promises they
have made on aid levels, particularly in the context of high-level
international meetings.
The Government agrees it is important to press donor
partners to fulfil their commitments and the recent White Paper
has committed the UK to do so. We will meet our commitments and
use every opportunity to press others to meet theirs. For example
we have played a leading role in securing reaffirmations of the
EU and G8 ODA commitments at the G20 London Summit in
April, the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)
in May, the United Nations Conference on the Financial Crisis
in June, and the G8 l'Aquila Summit in July.
[Paragraph 94] The effects of the economic downturn
on donors and recipients could provide the necessary motivation
to make more rapid progress on aid effectiveness. This would produce
tangible benefits in the impact that existing aid levels have
on poverty reduction as well as helping to maintain public support
for development. We agree with the Chairman of the OECD Development
Assistance Committee that the time is over for Governments
simply "paying lip-service" to the principles of aid effectiveness
set out in the Paris Declaration. Although DFID has been a good performer
to date in implementing the Paris Declaration principles, there
is no room for complacency. We recommend that the Independent
Advisory Committee on Development Impact (IACDI) consider
including evaluation of DFID's progress towards meeting its
Paris Declaration commitments as part of its future work
programme.
DFID welcomes the focus on pushing forward the true
implementation of the Paris Declaration and the need for DFID
to be constantly involved in evaluating progress. In
line with the principles, DFID's approach is not to do this
on our own from a UK perspective but to participate in the
ongoing joint evaluation of the Paris Declaration through the
OECD DAC, which has strong ownership from developing
countries and provides a cost-effective and partnership oriented
way of gathering the evidence. DFID's involvement in the
joint evaluation was discussed and agreed with IACDI and is an
important component of the work programme of independent
evaluations that DFID's Evaluation Department are delivering,
most of our studies being joint evaluations. Partnership
is a key principle in DFID's newly published evaluation policy.
DFID was one of the major financers
and most active participants in Phase One of the evaluation,
which focused on how the Declaration was being implemented.
This led to a series of reports including a major synthesis report,
8 country case studies, 11 studies of donors and various thematic
studies. DFID funded a study on applying the Paris
principles in fragile states, a study on statistical capacity
building, and a DFID donor case study. The synthesis report
was published in time to inform the High Level
Forum in Accra and was influential in discussions there.
DFID is also a partner and is contributing significant funding
to Phase Two which is looking at the impact of the Paris
Declaration. This work on Phase Two is currently at the planning
and procurement stage and will report next year, but the first
major meeting in Auckland was encouraging.
In June this year, the Independent Advisory Committee
on Development Impact (IACDI) agreed DFID's topics for evaluation
for the period 2009-2012, including assessment of the relevance,
effectiveness and impact of the Paris Declaration commitments.
The study will be conducted jointly with many other donors and
aid-receiving countries. Information will be gathered
in more than 15 developing countries during 2010, and the results,
available in 2011, will feed in to the fourth High Level Forum
on Aid Effectiveness later that year.
In addition to this major international study,
IACDI regularly considers DFID's progress on aid effectiveness,
drawing on information gathered through DFID's regular corporate performance
reporting and its participation in the OECD-DAC's Paris Declaration
monitoring survey. The latest information confirms that DFID
is making good progress towards the Paris targets. We have already
met seven of the 10 targets for action by donors,
three years ahead of schedule. DFID has also taken steps
to ensure that the Paris Declaration principles are fully incorporated
into our policies, procedures and strategies.
[Paragraph 96] We believe that DFID could improve
the effectiveness of its development activity if it made greater
use of the expertise that exists within local government in the
UK. We recommend that DFID explore the possibility of a development
partnership with the Local Government Association and other local
government organisations. We will examine this issue in more detail
in our inquiry into Urbanisation and Poverty.
DFID agrees that there are significant benefits to
be made from partnership with local government organisations.
DFID is currently working with the Local Government Association
(LGA) and other local government organisations through our support
to the Commonwealth Local Government Forum's Good Practice Scheme
on local government capacity building projects and also through
the Development Awareness Fund. DFID is continuing discussions
with the LGA about our future relationship which will be informed
by a Product Guide to be produced by LGA and evidence of the impact
of LGA interventions in low income countries.
Expertise within local government in the UK will
also be used in the Stabilisation Unit that works jointly to DFID,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence to help
countries emerging from conflict.
[Paragraph 101] We understand the difficulties
which national budget cycles pose for donors in setting indicative
timetables for reaching the 0.7% goal for aid allocations by 2015.
Agreeing timetables would, however, make it much easier to assess
whether pledges were being met. Just as importantly, it would
greatly assist partner countries in planning future expenditure
by giving them more certainty about the amounts of aid they would
receive and when. We believe the European Commission should continue
to push member states to set timetables. The UK has a good record
on aid predictability and meeting its funding pledges. Ways must
now be found to improve on this as part of the overall aim of
aid effectiveness, notwithstanding the stated obstacle of the
Comprehensive Spending Review cycle. The UK has set a more ambitious
target than other donors, aiming to reach 0.7% of GNI by 2013.
We therefore recommend that DFID now sets out a clear timetable
for how this will be achieved over the next four years which includes
annual milestones.
The Government agrees that milestones can be useful
in monitoring progress. The 2009 Budget reaffirmed the original
trajectory to 2010/11 set out in the 2007 Comprehensive
Spending Review and the Government plans to pass legislation that
will commit the UK to allocating 0.7% of GNI to ODA.
The UK remains committed to improved predictability
and certainty of aid levels for partner countries in line
with the Accra Agenda for Action. Providing information on
3-5 year rolling allocations is already the operational norm in
many of our partner countries particularly where we provide budget
support. We also continue to use 10-year Development Partnership
Arrangements (DPAs)—we currently have DPAs with ten countries.
Under new country planning guidance, DFID Country Offices are
required to project likely resources up to a 5-year period for
internal planning purposes. So where we publish country plans,
we publish indicative resource allocations for the CSR period,
and in some cases beyond this.
Internationally we are working to support the EU's
MDG (Millennium Development Goal) contract, an instrument that
will provide long term (6 years) predictable financing for the
MDGs for an eligible set of countries. As part of our commitment
to improving transparency the UK is leading on the International
Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). IATI is expected to agree,
by end 2009, a list of core information that all donors commit
to publishing in an accessible form.
[Paragraph 105] We believe that it is vital that
every pound that countries pledge as Official Development Assistance
(ODA) is spent on programmes whose main purpose is poverty reduction.
We recommend that the internationally agreed definition of
ODA is tightened to reflect this. We will return to the specific
issue of the relationship between ODA and funding for climate
change adaptation and mitigation in our forthcoming report on
Sustainable Development in a Changing Climate.
The Government agrees that the ODA definition must
remain focused upon poverty reduction and continues to use its
influence with the Development Assistance Committee to ensure
its integrity.
In the recent White Paper we set out how we seek
to ensure that additional public finance for climate change is
made available above existing ODA commitments. However we must
acknowledge that climate change hits poor countries first and
hardest. Seventy five percent of the poor are dependent on natural
resources for their livelihoods. Poor women and children are particularly
at risk. Increasing levels of water scarcity and deforestation
mean that women and girls have to walk further to collect water
and fuel. So we will also increase our poverty-related expenditure
on climate change, recognising that part of the climate financing
gap could legitimately come from ODA. But this will be limited
to up to 10% of our total ODA spend. We will work towards this
limit being agreed internationally so that sufficient development
assistance continues to be made available for the Millennium Development
Goals' achievement in the poorest countries.
Trade and taxation
[Paragraph 112] The developed world, represented
at the G20 meeting in London, accepted that a new global
agreement on trade could boost the global economy by $150 billion.
A successful outcome to the Doha round of World Trade Organisation
negotiations could generate three and a half times as much
revenue for poor countries as they receive in aid. Unfortunately,
acknowledging these facts does not seem to bring a new world
trade agreement any closer. We believe that the rich world should
show its commitment to economic growth in developing countries
by resisting protectionism, offering access to its markets
to poor countries and by finally concluding the pro-development
Doha round of WTO negotiations. Failure to do this could
negate much of the good work which has been done to assist developing countries
to cope with the recession. The UK has taken a strong position
in trying to encourage other countries to resolve their differences
on trade and should continue to engage the US and the
EU on this at every opportunity with a view to making real progress
at the G8 meeting in July.
DFID agrees that it is critical to conclude negotiations
on Doha as soon as possible—a Doha deal would lift millions
of people around the world out of poverty and boost the global
economy. The UK remains committed to securing a successful conclusion
to the Doha Development Round as the best way to secure open markets
for the benefit of all. A deal would provide completely free access
to developed markets for at least 97% of exports from least developed
countries. The deal would remove major distortions from global
agriculture markets (including reductions of 60% in EU agricultural
tariffs) and ambitious reform of the international cotton market,
where subsidies and tariffs cost poor farmers in West Africa $75-$100
million every year.
Meanwhile, we are continuing to enhance the developing
world's access to EU markets through Economic Partnership Agreements.
We welcome the recent signing of interim agreements by a number
of countries and the political commitment in ACP regions to negotiate
full EPAs particularly in West Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa
and the East African community.
We agree on the importance of resisting protectionism
and have actively supported the work of the WTO, OECD, UNCTAD
[UN Conference on Trade and Development] and the IMF in bringing
together their monitoring and analytical capability to produce
reports on developments in national trade and investment policies.
However, as member-driven organisations, these bodies are constrained
from frank and open analysis and criticism of measures taken by
individual states. We have therefore also supported Global Trade
Alert, a network of independent academic researchers which examines
protectionist measures and publishes information on these at http://www.globaltradealert.org/.
These measures have been helpful in providing a counterweight
to domestic political pressures for protectionism that governments
often face in difficult economic times.
The best defence against protectionism would be progress
on and completion of the Doha Development Round. At the G8 summit
in L'Aquila leaders of the G8+5, along with Australia, Indonesia
and South Korea reaffirmed their commitment "to seek an ambitious
and balanced conclusion to the Doha Development Round in 2010,
building on the progress already made". Trade Ministers subsequently
met in early September in New Delhi to continue discussions on
the DDA [Doha Development Agenda]. Key agreements at the meeting
included reaffirmation of the need to conclude the Round in 2010;
to use the progress made to December 2008 as a basis for further
work; and, as a first step, for Senior Official to meet in Geneva.
Senior officials met in Geneva in the week beginning 14 September
2009 and drew up a process of engagement for the next 2-3 months.
The G20 Summit at Pittsburgh is also expected to discuss trade
and we expect it to provide a further signal of political commitment
to the Round.
The UK continues to engage at all levels with the
US, EU and other WTO members on the importance of fulfilling their
commitment and reaching an early agreement on the DDA.
[Paragraph 120] Developing countries suffer
disproportionately from the existence of tax havens which
prevent them receiving much-needed tax revenue which they should
derive from economic activity within their borders. The
ending of tax havens is necessary, not only for reasons of
justice but also to promote good governance and robust management
of public finances in poor countries. We believe that the consensus
reached at the G20 represents an important milestone on the way
to reforming and fully implementing international taxation
standards. The UK Government deserves credit for ensuring this
issue was given appropriate priority at the London summit.
Momentum now needs to be maintained. The UK has an
opportunity to make amends for its previous failure to address
this issue by taking urgent steps now to ensure that British
Overseas Territories cease to be tax havens. We do not believe that
the Prime Minister writing to the territories concerned is sufficient;
more direct action must be taken. We request that, in response
to this Report, the Department provides us with an update on progress
with the FCO's work with Overseas Territories towards their
achievement of the OECD's taxation standards.
The Government is grateful for the acknowledgement
of progress made and agrees momentum must be sustained. In the
White Paper on Building our Common Future, the UK commits to ensure
that G20 agreements on standards and sanctions are met, as well
as to develop proposals by end 2009 to make it easier for developing
countries to benefit from the new co-operative tax environment.
Taxation is, however, a constitutionally devolved
competence in Overseas Territories, and is a responsibility of
the Territory Government. For constitutional reasons we are unable
to impose Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) on Territories.
Our ability to become involved is therefore limited, but we continue
to encourage and assist the Territories to achieve the internationally
agreed standard. The Government has extended its entrustment to
allow Overseas Territories to negotiate and conclude TIEAs with
G20 countries and jurisdictions already on the white list in addition
to EU and OECD countries covered under the earlier entrustment.
The report notes that the Prime Minister wrote to the Overseas
Territories urging them to meet the global standard in tax information
exchange. He also said that it will be vital to the interests
of the Overseas Territories that they can readily meet the new
international standards which may emerge. The UK remains committed
to working in partnership with the Territories to try to ensure
that they meet the standard as quickly as possible.
The Territories have made significant progress. Bermuda,
the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands have already
met the standard. Gibraltar has signed nine TIEAs, Turks and Caicos
Islands five, and Anguilla four. Montserrat, in receipt of
budgetary assistance from DFID, has a very small financial services
sector, is working in tandem with HM Revenue and Customs and is
close to signing its first agreement, with more to follow shortly.
All Territories with a financial services industry are
continuing to discuss TIEAs with a number of jurisdictions. They
have negotiated and concluded a number of other Agreements, which
are either initialled awaiting formal signature or have been sent
to the UK for final approval. Territories also have to rely on
the completion of internal procedures in the other jurisdiction
before formal signing can take place.
As a further indication of the commitment of the
Overseas Territories to meet the highest of international standards
Bermuda was recently elected vice chair of the OECD's Global Forum
and the Cayman Islands were elected to the steering group charged
with reviewing implementation of TIEAs.
Public support for development
[Paragraph 128] If DFID is to build public support
for development effectively it needs first to establish what
people's attitudes are. This requires the collection of information
that truly reflects public opinion. We do not believe that
DFID's surveys, as they are currently designed, achieve this.
They focus on whether people are concerned about poverty,
rather than whether they would support increased funding for development,
nor do they attempt to assess the relative importance people place
on development compared to domestic policy areas such as
health and education. We recommend that DFID
examines how it assesses the level of public support for development
and re-designs its surveys to address the weaknesses we have
identified.
DFID agrees that it is crucial to understand people's
attitudes on development, including the relative importance they
place upon spending on development versus domestic policies. DFID's
White Paper discusses the level of public support for development
and notes improved communications is essential to address weaknesses
identified. We recently tendered the contract for our annual tracking
survey and asked tendering agencies to read the
IDC's recommendations and factor them in with their proposals
for the next survey.
DFID's annual tracking survey now includes direct
questions in relation to priorities. First, respondents are asked
to consider the priority which the UK Government gives to support
for poor countries at an overall level, ranking it alongside a
number of other areas of Government spending such as "the
police" and "the NHS". Respondents are then asked
to consider the priority which should be given to different overseas
issues: for example ranking support to combat global warming/climate
change alongside aid in response to a natural disaster or to help
reduce population growth. The survey will also ask to what extent
the public agree with increased UK Government spending on overseas
aid.
[Paragraph 135] Corruption in the use of aid flows
is clearly one of the main concerns the UK public has about
development spending. DFID needs to address this issue head on
if it is to succeed in allaying taxpayers' concerns. We are
not convinced that its current approach is achieving this. We
recommend that DFID's Communication Strategy be refocused
and redesigned. The aim should be to create a more effective tool
for persuading the sceptical sectors of society that their
money is not being lost or misspent and that development
assistance brings real benefits to the world's poorest people.
DFID agrees that the appropriate use of funds is
a key concern of the British public and is committed to maintaining
and building public support for development, especially in the
context of the economic downturn. Our research findings show that
global poverty is becoming less of a priority for the UK public
and there is increasing concern about aid effectiveness and corruption.
DFID's recent White Paper stated our commitment to
building support for global development issues in the UK and introduced
the UKaid logo. Through application of the new logo to the activities
and projects that we fund, we aim to more clearly show where taxpayers'
money is being spent on development. In addition to increased
transparency all of DFID's projects will now be available on the
DFID website.
Finally, we are currently reviewing how we can strengthen
our work to communicate how UK aid works and is effective and
will be rolling out this work in the New Year. This will include
messages and communication materials which demonstrate how DFID
addresses and combats corruption.
[Paragraph 139] Whilst the policies which DFID
pursues should always be those which will have the most impact
on poverty reduction, the Department must make every effort to present
its work in a way that is accessible and meaningful to the public.
This would be assisted by emphasising its desired outcomes
in the promotion of its major programmes rather than the
sums of money to be spent.
DFID agrees that it is essential to present our work
in an accessible and meaningful way, with emphasis upon impact
and outcomes rather than spend. DFID is changing the way it communicates
the impact of its work through its 'Making it Happen Agenda'.
Within this there is a clear push on results and at its heart,
a Results Action Plan. The Action Plan embeds results more firmly
in DFID's culture and systems, encourages partner countries to
focus on improving their statistical systems and encourages an
international system with a clear focus on impact.
DFID is making good progress against its Results
Action Plan. For example, an improved logical framework format
is helping DFID improve the quality of project design, monitoring
and measuring results. A baseline on the quality of logical frameworks
and economic appraisals was established in 2008 with improvements
being tracked in 2009. DFID has also produced a new and improved
evaluation policy. Portfolio quality is improving—the index
we use to aggregate performance of all our projects and programmes
increased from 72% in 2007/08 to 73% in 2008/09[2].
Countries now also have more robust results frameworks in line
with some new country plan guidance which DFID produced for its
country operations.
In 2009, DFID's Departmental Report was entirely
results focused. Entitled "Better results for poor people"
it provided a compact results-focused assessment of our performance.
It contained a section on key achievements and used a more accessible
and easy-to-read format. See http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/Annual-report/Annual-Report-2009/#contents
DFID also carries out research to find out the
most effective messages and presentation in reaching
our UK public audiences and engaging their support. The new
logo, UKaid, is a key component in our Departmental communications
and we now make information about the projects we fund accessible
through a new database on the DFID website.
[Paragraph 145] We endorse the Secretary of State's
view that the UK's development work needs to gain greater resonance
in the public consciousness. We, too, want to reach a point
where the UK's achievements in meeting its international commitments
to developing countries is seen as being part of our national
identity. We agree that increased public awareness of DFID's
work could make a significant contribution to this and that
greater visibility for the Department's activities is a key component
of a more effective public relations strategy. We would therefore
support a change in the Department's name to better reflect
what it does and that it is funded by UK taxpayers. We are
open-minded on what the new title should be but "British
Aid" or "DFID UK" seem like reasonable suggestions.
The Secretary of State indicated that this matter would be
included in DFID's new White Paper to be published later this
year—we look forward to seeing firm proposals for change
then.
DFID appreciates the support to explore new branding
avenues. DFID's recent White Paper stated our commitment
to building support for global development issues in the UK and introduced
the UKaid logo. Through application of the new logo to the activities
and projects that we fund, we aim to more clearly show UK
taxpayers where their money is being spent on development.
However, the Department will continue to be called
DFID. This is because DFID is well-established and recognised
within the development community and consequently we do not want
to risk compromising this heritage. However, 'DFID' does not effectively
communicate what we do to the UK public and therefore UKaid was
tested with the UK public. The tests found it to be an effective
way of identifying our overseas development work and building
understanding of what we do.
We have initially introduced the UKaid logo on DFID
activities in the UK, with a period of consultation over its usage
with our NGO partners and piloting in some of our country
offices. We intend to roll-out its application
to all relevant DFID-funded activities by November 2009.
[Paragraph 150] Time spent in a developing country
can clearly be a worthwhile and rewarding experience for
the young people involved. However, DFID must ensure that it is using
its resources for awareness-raising in a way that achieves the
maximum possible impact. It may be that "less glamorous"
work in the UK would be a more efficient use of money than
funding people to travel abroad. We suggest that the Department
uses the opportunity presented by the review of its development awareness
work to reassess its Community Linkage initiative and reflect
upon whether it is the most effective way to achieve the
Department's aims.
DFID agrees that it is very important to use its
resources for awareness-raising in ways that will achieve the
maximum possible impact whilst maintaining value for money. DFID
recently commissioned reviews of our awareness raising work over
the last decade, and we are supporting further research on this
issue.
DFID is grateful for the Committee's thoughts on
the new Community Linking Programme. The programme is at a very
early stage of implementation. We have just begun the inception
phase and during this phase, a baseline survey of existing community
links, and an assessment of their quality and effectiveness will
be undertaken. This data will be used to determine what activities
should be undertaken during the implementation phase of the programme, including
deciding how many links should be set up, and how much of the
programme's resources should be used to improve existing links.
A wide range of communities across the UK will link with communities
in developing countries. The aim is to increase UK public understanding
of development issues and undertake mutually beneficial activities
through providing small grants to communities in the UK.
A plan for measuring the impact of the programme on UK public
awareness and support for international development is being developed,
and appropriate indicators of impact are being identified. DFID
will monitor carefully the information provided, in order to ensure
that the programme is an efficient use of departmental funds.
The majority of the activities which we finance to
raise awareness in the UK are UK-based. For example, DFID's Global
Schools Partnership programme (DGSP) supports links between schools
in the UK with schools in developing countries. This offers support
and guidance to teachers in UK schools, and grants to schools
to make the most out of a partnership, both as a learning tool
for students and to develop and embed a global dimension within
their curriculum. Similarly, other programmes, while having an
overseas element still require volunteers to undertake activities
when they return and ensure that their learning and experience
is shared with their peers and their wider community. An
example of this is DFID's Platform2 programme (which funds young
people aged 18-25 from less advantaged backgrounds to undertake
projects in developing countries).
[Paragraph 153] DFID needs to build on the work
it has done to increase public awareness of development in
schools. We recommend that, as part of the review of its building
support for development programmes, DFID investigate the possibility
of extending its work with young people beyond schools into
youth work, and higher and further education.
DFID appreciates the need to explore all avenues
to increase public awareness. DFID's White Paper commits the UK
to continue to focus on promoting learning about development through
the UK education system, seeking to deepen our collaboration with
the education departments and institutions that influence schools
and teachers in the UK.
DFID has reviewed its schools education work and
wider activities to raise development awareness amongst young
people in the UK as part of its recent review of
its building support for development programmes. The reports have
been published on the DFID website http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-with-DFID/Consultations/Open-consultations/
Recommendations-of-Reviews-of-DFIDs-Building-Support-for-Development-Work-in-the-UK/
and have been opened for public consultation. Once the consultation has
concluded, DFID officials will consider how to take forward the review
recommendations, including on how best to continue to work with
young people.
1 DFID is implementing this project jointly with the
Tripartite of three regional economic communities - COMESA, EAC,
and SADC Back
2
Portfolio quality is an index which assesses the performance of
projects of £1million or over in DFID's bilateral portfolio.
It assesses the likelihood of whether or not a project will achieve
its objectives. Back
| 
