Reply from the Secretary of State to the
First Annual Letter from the Independent Advisory Committee for
Development Impact (IACDI)
Thank you for your letter of 1 December.
As I said when we met, the Government is committed
to ensuring that the UK's development budget is used effectively
to make the maximum impact on the lives of the world's poorest
people. I wholeheartedly then support the importance of high quality
and independent evaluation to underpin our policy decisions and
accountability for the impact of UK aid. The establishment of
the Independent Advisory Committee on Development Impact is an
important part of the Government's commitment to independent,
open and transparent scrutiny of our development assistance, and
I welcome the Committee's recommendations. I am also pleased that
the Committee confirms DFID's performance as among the best of
comparable international development agencies.
I very much appreciate the work of the Committee
during its first year, and note that it has already had a major
role in shaping DFID's new evaluation policy, which we are launching
for consultation on 9 December. The Committee has helped raise
the profile of evaluation and the expertise of the members is
having a real impact; in particular I welcome IACDI's efforts
to enhance lesson-learning and follow-up action and understanding
of rigorous impact evaluation across DFID. I am also pleased that
DFID's first Annual Evaluation Report has proved useful to the
Committee.
We should always aim higher; that is why we
created IACDI, and acted on your immediate recommendations to
strengthen the quality and independence of evaluation in the following
ways:.
— The Head of Evaluation Department
(EvD) now reports directly to Director General for Corporate Performance
on the DFID Management Board. This gives the Head of EvD considerable
access to the Board. The Head of EvD plays an active role in senior
committees including DFID's new Investment Committee, on which
you are a permanent observer, and the Country Planning Review
Committee, which reviews the content of our major country programmes.
These are important mechanisms for ensuring evaluation findings
inform our own decision making on country assistance and overall
value for money.
— We have increased resources for EvD
from £3.6m in 2007-08 to £5.1m for 2009-10. The size
of our Evaluation Department has nearly doubled since 2004. Programme
resources allocated to evaluation allowed DFID to lead bilateral
donors in investing in international systems for rigorous impact
evaluation, supplementing our major expansion in development policy
research.
— We have strengthened our systems
and processes to help ensure evaluation recommendations inform
decision making and progress is tracked routinely. This is clearly
making a difference particularly for lesson learning in major
policy areas. Our country planning approval process now requires
explicit use of country programme evaluations. Earlier this year,
DFID drew extensively on evidence from a joint evaluation to update
its policy on budget support and guidance on assessing benefits.
Similarly the recommendations from an evaluation of DFID's gender
policy fed directly into the Gender Equality Action Plan in 2007,
supported by updated guidance through a Gender Manual published
this month.
We agree on the need continually to strengthen
the quality, independence and impact of evaluation in DFID. It
will be important however, that any future decisions are based
on evidence of both effectiveness and value for money. As I said
at our meeting, I am happy to consult IACDI on future resourcing
decisions for evaluation in DFID, and look forward to your advice
on evaluation study quality. I will review current arrangements
in the context of progress in the implementation of our new Evaluation
Policy.
I look forward to further discussion with you
and the Committee over the coming year.
I am copying this letter to Malcolm Bruce MP
the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Douglas Alexander
11 December 2008.
Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Department for International Development
The following information was provided to the
Committee during it's public evidence sessions in it's inquiry
into DFID and China.
DFID'S STRATEGY
TOWARDS MIDDLE
INCOME COUNTRIES
We no longer have a public version of our strategy
towards middle-income countries. We are committed to ensuring
that the proportion of the UK's bilateral programme going to low-income
countries is at least 90%, as stated in the HMG Poverty Reduction
Public Service Agreement for 2008-11.
Within the 10% allocated for middle-income countries,
our approach is governed by the following principles:
— Upon achievement of middle income
status DFID's general approach is to pursue a strategy of sustainable
graduation from bilateral assistance.
— Our limited bilateral assistance
for middle-incomes is increasingly focused on large, emerging
global partners which have the potential to make a significant
impact on poverty reduction in other countries (eg China, South
Africa).
— DFID believes the 90/10 commitment
of bilateral assistance between low- and middle-income countries
is an appropriate policy because:
— Aid is more effective at reducing
poverty in countries which have higher levels of poverty and gives
us the best chance of meeting the MDGs.
— DFID provides substantial support
to middle income countries through our contributions to regional
programmes and to multilateral institutions, such as the EC, World
Bank, Asian Development Bank.
— Middle-income country needs are more
focused around getting the right opportunities and voice in international
fora, accessing global best practice, and technical assistance
(skills/training). DFID supports the transfer of knowledge to
both middle income country governments and between key international
agencies.
— Middle income countries have access
to greater sources of capital (both concessionary and non-concessionary).
|
