Memorandum submitted by RESULTS UK
RESULTS UK has focused on two areas of analysis,
arising from the work of RESULTS and the suggestions of the International
Development Select Committee. The two areas are:
— The effectiveness of DFID's mechanisms
for evaluating the impact of its aid.
— DFID's progress in meeting the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), focusing on the targets associated with
tuberculosis (TB), basic education and microfinance.
The UK Department for International Development
(DFID) states in its 2008 Annual Report that "DFID's aim
is the reduction of poverty, in particular through the achievement
of the MDGs by 2015. Everything that DFID does, through its country
programmes and collaboration with international organisations,
is guided by the MDGs". It is further stated that "DFID
has a Public Service Agreement (PSA) which sets out the objectives
and targets by which we measure our progress as monitored by HM
Treasury. The current Public Service Agreement (PSA) runs for
the three-year period from 2005 to 2008.We measure performance
through targets that are based on the MDGs".
In terms of the effectiveness of DFID's aid,
we have concluded that DFID emphasises inputs to a greater extent
than outcomes, and partly as a result DFID cannot adequately measure
the effectiveness of its aid nor whether it has reached the intended
beneficiaries. Moreover the current PSA targets are inadequate
as a measurement of DFID's aid and inadequate as targets to assess
progress towards achieving the MDGs.
In terms of tuberculosis, there is a general
lack of mention in the 2008 report of TB and global TB targets
compared with HIV/AIDS. A further issue is DFID's focus on health
systems strengthening and budget support at the expense of funding
disease-specific programmes, rather than complementing them, as
well as the lack of DFID's policy recommendations being implemented
at country level.
In terms of education, we focus on the need
for long-term predictable funding, removing barriers to education
such as user fees and teacher shortages, reaching those in greatest
need such as children living in conflict affected states as well
as the need for more qualitative indicators for measuring the
success of aid dedicated to education.
As regards microfinance we emphasise that it
is an underutilised tool, but one that has a growing and substantial
body of evidence attesting to its effectiveness in achieving several
MDGs. We note the lack of mention of microfinance in DFID's 2008
report, and that there is a need to focus on targeting the poorest
people.
1. THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF DFID'S
MECHANISMS FOR
EVALUATING THE
IMPACT OF
ITS AID
DFID emphasises inputs rather than outcomes
1.0 The previous report (2007) by the International
Development Select Committee (IDC) upon DFID, states that "DFID
continues to emphasise inputs rather than outcomes—it focuses
too much on how much it spends on aid rather than measuring the
effects of its aid spending on poverty". This issue is the
main theme that we would like to raise as a point of concern,
considering the lack of detailed information in the 2008 report
on the particulars of which DFID programmes and what funding are
contributing to each MDG, as well as which programmes and what
funding are not.
1.1 In the 2008 report, Douglas Alexander
sets out DFID's main priorities for achieving the MDGs: Peace
and security, climate change, growth, and international reform.
From the report it seems clear that DFID is increasingly focusing
upon these macro-level priorities, through multilateral aid and
through providing budget support to country governments, as opposed
to increasing bilateral aid to vertical programming or through
alternative funding streams. As a result, this makes measuring
the effectiveness and impact of DFID's aid very difficult. Increases
in funding to multilateral agencies and recent pledges such as
£6 billion to support health systems strengthening are needed
and welcome, but we are concerned that DFID cannot adequately
measure the effectiveness of the outcomes of such support in contributing
toward the MDGs.
1.2 Whilst DFID's budget is increasing due
to the need to meet the UN target of 0.7% of GNI allocated to
Official Development Assistance by 2013, the previous IDC report
noted that it is also obliged to reduce its administrative costs,
"which in practice means cutting the number of staff it employs",
furthermore that "one of the ways DFID deals with disbursing
a growing aid budget with fewer staff is through poverty reduction
budget support (PRBS)". We are concerned that DFID is giving
preference to budget support and thus emphasising how much it
spends as opposed to what it has specifically achieved, not because
it is the most effective way to reduce poverty but because it
is an easier way to disburse aid. A further issue that arises
is whether DFID will be increasingly outsourcing its work to other
agencies or consultants, if this trend continues.
DFID cannot adequately measure the effectiveness
of its aid nor whether it has reached the intended beneficiaries
1.3 Although the 2008 report is a target-oriented
summary of DFID's work, and based around progress made towards
the PSA 2005-08, this system does not provide an adequate and
complete overview of DFID's support and expenditure. The previous
IDC report noted that following the publication of DFID's HIV/AIDS
Strategy Taking Action in 2007, DFID could only identify
"potentially relevant" projects and programmes that
benefitted from funding earmarked for children made vulnerable
by HIV and AIDS.
1.4 The 2008 report notes the creation of
the Results Action Plan, as well as the Independent Advisory Committee
on Development Impact. Within the Action Plan one of the key priorities
is to achieve "strengthened performance and results frameworks
for country programmes", a priority which is also included
in the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. If implemented
effectively this priority should lead to a greater capacity for
DFID to report on the outcomes and effectiveness of its aid. We
believe that this Action Plan and other such measures should be
given greater priority by DFID, as measuring the outcomes of specific
pledges and how effectively policy has been implemented is a major
challenge for DFID.
1.5 Within the 2008 report DFID states that
its policies are based on "evidence of what works".
We are concerned that there is not enough evidence to justify
DFID's increasing use of general budget support (GBS) or sector
budget support (SBS, eg health) at the expense of, instead of
in complement to, more targeted aid to reach the poorest of the
poor. Although we commend DFID's achievements and commitments
to-date, we believe that there is not enough evidence to show
that DFID's current approach to monitoring its aid "works",
as the 2008 report does not provide specific details on how promoting
GBS or SBS are meeting the MDGs.
The PSA targets are inadequate as a measurement
of aid
1.6 DFID has stated that its raison d'être
is to achieve the MDGs, the monitoring of which occurs through
assessing progress towards achieving the current PSA objectives
and targets. However, DFID has different targets for different
regions within its PSA 2005-08 objectives, whilst the MDGs are
universal. No explanation is given to the allocation of these
targets. In the targets associated with MDG6, there is no tuberculosis
(TB) target for Africa, whilst there are two for Asia, yet DFID
acknowledges in its report and in its AIDS Strategy that TB is
a pandemic of poverty in Africa that merits urgent attention.
1.7 The IDC reported that the proposed PSA
Delivery Agreement 29, which will replace previous PSAs, will
focus monitoring on 22 countries in which DFID considers it can
"make the most impact in measuring progress", as well
as having fewer targets. That DFID necessarily has to prioritise
key countries and key development topics relative to its strengths
is understandable, however we believe that the focus should not
be on where the most progress can be measured but on where the
most progress is needed.
1.8 We are concerned that DFID is not comprehensively
addressing the MDGs, due to the inadequacy of the PSA objectives
and targets as a system of measurement to report on the effectiveness
of the programmes and support DFID is providing to reduce poverty.
We are also concerned by the observation of the previous IDC report,
which noted that "some PSA targets were eased in the current
Spending Review period (2005-08)". If DFID is to obtain an
adequate measure of the impact of its aid, whether it has reached
its beneficiaries and what impact DFID is having in progress toward
the MDGs, a more detailed and comprehensive evidence-based results-oriented
assessment strategy is needed.
2. DFID'S PROGRESS
IN MEETING
THE MILLENNIUM
DEVELOPMENT GOALS,
FOCUSING ON
THE TARGETS
ASSOCIATED WITH
TUBERCULOSIS (TB), BASIC
EDUCATION AND
MICROFINANCE
3. MDG 6: FOCUSING
ON TUBERCULOSIS
(TB)
The general lack of mention of TB and global TB
targets compared with HIV/AIDS in the PSA targets related to MDG
6
3.1 DFID's 2008 report noted that the UK
will commit up to £1 billion up to 2015 to the Global Fund
to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, with £360 million for the
period 2008-11, as well as noting the launch of the International
Health Partnership (IHP) in 2007. We applaud these commitments
as well as the mention of the global co-epidemic of TB/HIV in
DFID's recently revised AIDS Strategy; "stronger links must
... be forged between TB, malaria and HIV services|in hyper-endemic
countries, TB and HIV are fuelling each other, and the need for
integration is made more urgent by the steep rise in drug resistant
TB infections".
3.2 Despite DFID's acknowledgement of the
severity of TB as a disease of poverty, there is little mention
of TB or TB/HIV in the 2008 report. Although the report is structured
around DFID's progress in achieving the MDGs, the MDG target for
TB is rarely mentioned. Perhaps the most important observation
is that there is no PSA TB target for Africa and insufficient
ones for elsewhere, as such the report does not state, for example,
what DFID is doing to support TB/HIV co-ordinated activities in
hyper-endemic countries.
3.3 The All-Party Parliamentary Group on
Global Tuberculosis released in 2007 the report Agenda for Action,
which included concrete recommendations on how the UK should continue
its vital support to TB control and scale-up its response. It
is impossible to answer, based on the report, what specific activities
DFID is supporting to implement the APPG report, as well as the
World Health Organisation's Stop TB Partnership's Global Plan
to Stop TB; the MDR-TB and XDR-TB Global Response Plan, and any
funding provided to these plans in the period covered by the 2008
report.
3.4 The PSA Delivery Agreement 29 which
replaces the current PSA 2005-08 has fewer targets than the previous
PSAs and has only one indicator for MDG 6: HIV prevalence among
15-49 year olds. The lack of mention of TB and malaria compared
with HIV/AIDS, and the focus on health system strengthening raises
a worry that progress will not be properly monitored concerning
the confrontation of TB, and the appropriate action may not materialise
in order to address the health emergencies of drug-resistant TB
and the co-epidemic of TB/HIV in areas such as sub-Saharan Africa.
DFID's focus on health systems strengthening and
budget support at the expense of funding disease-specific programmes
3.5 Of the evidence concerning MDG6 in DFID's
report, much concerns prioritising support to health systems strengthening
and health sector budget support. We understand that DFID is increasing
health sector budget support, whilst at the same time reducing
disease-specific bilateral aid. We believe however that targeted
investments are important for addressing priority diseases as
part of a broader health systems approach. The recent report "Healthy
Aid" by Action for Global Health, cited with evidence the
case of Zambia, in which the introduction of GBS and a sector-wide
approach (SWA) to health led to "the collapse of the Zambian
TB programme". The report concluded that GSB "only helps
the Government deal with regular health problems and not extraordinary
problems such as HIV, AIDS and TB".
Reflecting policy recommendations at country level
3.6 In 2007 RESULTS UK produced a report
on the response of the UK Government and civil society to the
TB/HIV co-epidemic. One important finding of the report was that
although DFID recommends integration of TB and HIV services at
policy level, a survey of DFID country offices revealed that these
policies are not being implemented. This raises a significant
issue about the lack of co-ordination within DFID and whether
other policy areas have experienced a lack of implementation.
Secondly, due to the fact that DFID does not disaggregate its
TB, TB/HIV or even HIV funding, it was impossible for DFID to
state how much it had spent on combating TB, and therefore difficult
for DFID to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of its aid to
confront TB.
3.7 According to DFID's 2008 report there
has been some welcome progress in South Asia on the two PSA TB
targets for Asia concerning TB cure and detection rates, but the
same cannot be said for Central and East Asia or sub-Saharan Africa.
DFID states, "In many countries progress is slowed by health
systems that do not have the capacity to deliver services".
Whilst this is an important issue, we are concerned, due to the
reasons given above that DFID is not able to adequately monitor
progress in achieving MDG 6, nor is it addressing it adequately
at country level. The implications for the issues that have been
discussed raises a significant point that was noted by the previous
IDC report: DFID cannot adequately state to a sufficient level
whether its aid is reaching the intended beneficiaries.
4. MDG 2: COMMITMENT
TO EDUCATION
FOR ALL
Funding education
4.1 DFID should be commended for making
generous commitments to funding basic education which is vital
if the world is to meet its MDG commitment of ensuring universal
access to education. The pledge of £8.5 billion over a 10
year period, made in April 2006 was a most welcome development.
However, despite this pledge being made over two years ago DFID
has yet to release details of how and where they intend to spend
this money.
4.2 Long term and predictable funding is
vital for developing countries if they are to be able to develop
and implement comprehensive long term education plans with a view
to meeting the MDG 2 target. We welcome the knowledge that 11
African PSA countries have been able to develop such long term
plans with DFID's financial support, but DFID should seek to encourage
and provide assistance to all PSA countries to develop such long
term plans in the near future.
4.3 The Education For All Fast Tack Initiative
(FTI) is an effective and important multi donor funding mechanism
to which DFID is now the second largest contributor, but it is
a mechanism which is unexplainably absent from the 2008 report.
With the UK now at the end of its three year funding cycle to
the FTI we would encourage DFID to make a significant and long
term commitment to the fund and push for a speeding up of the
funds disbursements to allay the one major criticism that is often
directed at the FTI.
Removing barriers
4.4 One of the greatest barriers to education
remains the charging of tuition fees. The 2008 report highlights
the enormous impact that their removal can have on school enrolment
and on achieving gender parity in schools. Despite significant
progress in recent years it is estimated that out of 94 poor countries,
77 still have some type of education user fee, including several
DFID partner countries. Though DFID have a policy of seeking to
dissuade partner countries from charging such fees and encouraging
them to include plans for their abolition in their education plans,
DFID need to provide greater clarity on which of their partner
countries still charge fees and what, if any, concrete plans are
in place for their abolition.
4.5 It is clear that the world cannot reach
its education goals by 2015 unless it urgently deals with the
current chronic lack of teachers. It is estimated that an additional
18 million teachers are needed if MDG 2 stands any chance of being
met, yet policies imposed by the IMF continue to prevent many
poor countries from employing the teachers that they so desperately
need. DFID point out in their report that "the main role
of the IMF is to provide stability in the world economy",
but true lasting stability can only be achieved if all the worlds
children are offered the chance of a quality education so that
they have the opportunity to contribute to that economy and help
lift themselves out of poverty.
Reaching those in greatest need
4.6 It is thought that up to 37 million
of the 72 million children out of school in the world live in
conflict affected fragile states. If MDG 2 is to be met by 2015
far greater emphasis must be placed on reaching these children.
DFIDs 2008 report fails to directly address this issue. We believe
that DFID should use its experience in fragile states to expand
its education programmes to all fragile states it has a presence
in so that they too can hope to achieve universal primary education
for their children.
4.7 Up to 26 million, or one third of all
out of school children worldwide are thought to be disabled, and
in Africa it is thought that only 10% of disabled children receive
an education. DFID should encourage its partner countries to make
specific provisions in their education plans for increasing access
to children with disabilities.
Measuring success
4.8 DFID's PSA targets for both South Asia
and India use enrolment rates as the measure of DFID's success
in the education sector. The picture painted by such indicators
is very rough and at times deceiving as factors such as high drop-out
rates, poor learning outcomes, pupil-teacher ratios far above
the recommended 40:1 target and chronic absenteeism can be underplayed.
DFID should measure the quality as well as the quantity of education
provided in assessing the effectiveness of its aid.
5. MICROFINANCE
AND THE
MDG'S
An underutilised tool
5.1 There is a mounting body of evidence
which shows that microfinance is a proven and effective tool for
poverty alleviation with a strong impact on the achievement of
the MDGs including but not limited to poverty alleviation, promoting
children's education, improving health outcomes for women and
children and empowering women. Microfinance is unique among development
interventions in that it can deliver social benefits on an ongoing,
permanent basis and on a large scale.
5.2 Despite the great potential for microfinance
to help attain the MDGs, DFID barely mentions microfinance in
its 2008 report, with only a fleeting mention in the "Reducing
Poverty in South Asia" section. To its credit DFID has committed
at least £70 million to microfinance schemes in 6 different
countries over the last three years. However such investment in
Microfinance Institutions (MFI's) appears to be the exception
rather than the rule and far greater investment is needed in more
DFID partner countries if they are to harness the full potential
of microfinance and make progress towards the MDGs.
Targeting the poorest
5.3 In recent years DFID has moved towards
investing almost exclusively in the strengthening and widening
of the financial sector in developing countries in preference
to providing direct financial support to MFI's. Whilst financial
widening and strengthening is an important process in the development
of a countries economy it can have the adverse effect of taking
the focus away from reaching the very poorest. If the MDGs are
to be met by 2015 it is these people who DFID should be targeting.
5.4 DFID provides no reliable data to show
whether their funding for MFI's benefits the very poor (those
living on less than $1 a day or the bottom half of those living
below the national poverty line). DFID should provide information
on what, if any, mechanisms it has in place to measure the income/poverty
level of MFI'S incoming or current clients. Such data is crucial
if DFID is to be able to state with confidence that the aid it
is providing is having the greatest possible impact.
5.5 With many MDGs still off track, microfinance
could help provide a much needed boost to DFIDs effort to alleviate
poverty and meet the MDGs. DFID should increase funding for microfinance
programmes, increase its involvement in capacity building in respect
of MFI's and should work to ensure that at least 50 percent of
its resources reach those living below the poverty line.
6. CONCLUSION
DFID's main priorities as outlined by Douglas
Alexander are indisputably essential and worthwhile areas to focus
upon. There is also evidence that DFID is adopting a more results-oriented
approach to development, attested to by the adoption of the Results
Action Plan and other such measures. DFID has made major contributions
to reducing poverty worldwide, but there are several challenges
and major issues concerning the inadequacy of the PSA targets
and the method in which DFID disburses its aid. Too much focus
on macro-level issues and sector budget support misses the essential
focus of what development should be about; human beings. We are
concerned that DFID is focusing too much on the means of development
and not enough on the ends.
| 
