Memorandum submitted by Saferworld
1. Saferworld's mission is to prevent and
reduce violent conflict and, as such, we take a close interest
in UK Government policies that have an impact, positively or negatively,
on conflict prevention. With the relationship between development
and conflict well recognised, if not always fully explored, Saferworld
welcomes the chance to give evidence to the International Development
Select Committee on DfID's Annual Report 2008.
CONFLICT AND
DEVELOPMENT
2. There is much to praise in the report
and we particularly welcome the explicit recognition that we "...
will not meet the millennium development goals, nor ensure regional
and global security and the fulfilment of human rights without
progress in fragile states".[25]
3. Of course, the relationship between conflict
and development works both ways and poorly designed development
programmes may end up inadvertently causing or escalating conflict.
This is a fact DfID have recognised in relation to fragile states
with their leadership on the OECD Principles for Good International
Engagement in Fragile States and Situations.[26]
4. However, the need for development to
be conflict-sensitive goes beyond operations in fragile states.
DfID's "scenario and contingency planning" processes
are welcome but should be mainstreamed across all of their programmes.
Additionally, DfID must ensure that these exercises are operationally
meaningful and be prepared to adapt their programmes as appropriate
in light of the results. The annual report highlights the European
General Affairs and External Relations Council's commitment to
undertaking conflict assessments for EU country and regional strategy
papers.[27]
DfID should ensure that it is conducting, referring to and updating
conflict assessments for everywhere it works.
5. Ensuring that development programmes
really are conflict-sensitive requires a good understanding of
the political situation on the ground. It is therefore encouraging
to read about DfID's increased cooperation with the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, both in terms of more co-location of overseas
offices as well as more "lesson learning" and "scenario
planning" exercises conducted with FCO involvement.[28]
6. However, understanding the context in
which operations are happening requires a certain commitment to
staffing, as the annual report acknowledges in relation to risk
management in Nepal.[29]
It would therefore be interesting to know how DfID plans to build
on their successes in this area, particularly in light of the
fact that an increase in budget to £7.9 million in 2010-11[30]
is to go hand in hand with the reduction of administrative costs
called for by the 2007 CSR. More aid being given by less staff
would bode ill for the kind of analysis and monitoring that effective,
conflict-sensitive aid requires.
ARMS EXPORT
CONTROLS
7. The report is right to recognise DfID's
effort in pushing for a global Arms Trade Treaty and we hope that
DfID will continue to work hard on this during the crucial years
of negotiation ahead when the issue may be far from the public
eye.
8. Domestically, whilst it is true that
the UK's arms export controls are stricter than many countries,
neither the controls—nor their implementation—are
perfect. DfID should use its position as "... part of the
cross-Whitehall team that scrutinises applications for licences
to export arms from the UK and ensures that these exports do not
seriously undermine sustainable development"[31]
to push for improvements to these controls (for example, addressing
the weak legal status of sustainable development in assessing
exports of military equipment) and ensure that legislation is
backed up with sufficient resources to be effectively implemented
and enforced. It is worth noting that, between 2004 and 2006,
France refused 60 export licences on development grounds whilst
the UK refused none.[32]
PEACEBUILDING COMMISSION
9. Saferworld are glad that DfID's commitment
to managing conflict extends to supporting the work of the Peacebuilding
Commission (PBC) but have some questions about the level of funding
that it is providing.
10. The Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) currently
has around $235 million in its accounts and another c $35 million
in pledges. However, PBC country accompaniment is, necessarily,
an activity with a long time-frame and, with just a handful of
countries on their agenda, the PBC is already operating at pretty
much maximum capacity. If the good work of the PBC is to be built
on and spread to other countries, then DfID may have to think
about increasing its financial support to the PBF from its current
level of £30 million over three years,[33]
as well as encouraging other donors to raise their level of contributions
too.
11. DfID will also need to ensure that their
overseas staff in PBC focal countries have a full appreciation
of the added value that the PBC brings and appreciate it as a
complementary, rather than rival, mechanism to the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers.
June 2008
25 DfID Annual Report 2008, p 151. Back
26
"International interventions can inadvertently create societal
divisions and worsen corruption and abuse, if they are not based
on strong conflict and governance analysis and designed with appropriate
safeguards". OECD Principles for Good International Engagement
in Fragile States and Situations. Back
27
DfID Annual Report 2008, p 156. Back
28
Ibid, p 17 and p 153. Back
29
Ibid, p 152. Back
30
Ibid, p 16. Back
31
Ibid, p 158. Back
32
7th, 8th and 9th EU Consolidated Reports. Back
33
DfID Annual Report 2008, p 155. Back
| 
