House of Commons - Urbanisation and Poverty - International Development Committee

Urbanisation and Poverty - International Development Committee Contents

4 THE RESPONSE BY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

99. We now consider the responses of other members of the international community to urban poverty. Firstly, we will assess the programmes and policies of the major multilateral institutions: the United Nations (UN) and the multilateral development banks (the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the African Development Bank). Two key international initiatives, the Slum Upgrading Facility and the Cities Alliance, will be considered as part of this. Secondly, we will look at the role of community-led initiatives in addressing urban poverty. Thirdly, we will explore how UK local government could contribute to international efforts. Finally, we will look at how DFID and other donors can support developing country governments to give urban poverty a higher priority in national poverty reduction strategy papers.

100. We think it is worth noting that the scale of the challenge regarding slum upgrading requires huge leverage of private sector funds. We believe that all development actors, including DFID, should do all they can to unlock private sector investment in urban development. These flows have the potential to substantially reduce urban poverty. Our recommendations to DFID, multilateral donors and other global stakeholders are thus based on the premise that the greatest impacts will be achieved when donor funds are used to stimulate private, alongside public, investment in urban development.

The response by multilateral institutions

THE UNITED NATIONS

101. UN-Habitat is the UN agency for human settlements. It is mandated to promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all. The agency was established in 1978. In 2002, the UN General Assembly significantly enhanced UN-Habitat's budget and function. The agency now has more than 130 technical programmes and projects in 60 countries around the world. Examples of projects include: work on pro-poor housing, land tenure and property administration; governance and safety initiatives; emergency relief and reconstruction (for example, in Afghanistan, China, Iraq, Kenya, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Somalia); environmental planning; and improving water, sanitation and infrastructure in urban areas.[174]

102. At its annual Governing Council meeting in April 2009, UN-Habitat secured the highest year-on-year budget increase in its history. The total of $396.6 million for 2010-11 represents an increase of around 30% from the 2008-09 budget of $289.7 million.[175]However, UN-Habitat officials told us that this was an "aspirational budget" allowing for the "the best possible scenario" in terms of what the agency can collect from donors over the two-year cycle.[176] Most of the funds are earmarked for specific projects. UN-Habitat said that this meant they often had to put individual donor priorities above their own identified priorities, which include: support for governance and planning; development of pro-poor land and housing policies; the provision of environmentally sound infrastructure and services; and expanded housing finance.[177]

103. DFID's current annual allocation of £1 million to UN-Habitat's core funding constitutes around 7% of all core contributions, considerably lower than the 12% DFID contributed in 2002 (making it the highest donor at that point). The top-ranking donors are currently: Norway, which provided 15% of core contributions in 2007; Sweden with 11%; Italy with 9%; and Spain with 7%.[178] DFID commits extra funding for UN-Habitat's activities in the field; for instance, humanitarian operations in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sudan.[179] This was worth around $12 million in 2007.[180] However, this equates to just 2% of the agency's total (as opposed to core) contributions and ranks DFID eighth in donor generosity (Spain is lead donor, providing 11%).[181]

104. The DFID Minister underlined the fact that he expected "sharper work by the UN family as a whole" on urban poverty and that UN Development Programme, UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and "a range of other UN organisations" should incorporate responses to urbanisation within their UN Development Assistance Frameworks in developing countries.[182] This reflects the new DFID White Paper's emphasis on the importance of system-wide UN approaches.[183] Much of UN-Habitat's funding comes to them through UNDP so this is a particularly important partnership.[184]

105. We commend the work of UN-Habitat on human settlements and urban development across a wide range of contexts. We were disappointed to learn that the UK's contribution to the agency's core funding has fallen from 12% in 2002 to 7%. We recommend that DFID's £1 million annual contribution to core funding (or 7% of the total from all donors) is boosted to bring it closer to that of Norway and Sweden, who provide 15% and 11% of the core budget respectively. Non-earmarked funding of this kind is vital for the agency to pursue its identified priorities which cover an important range of urban development outcomes.

106. We agree with DFID that co-ordination across UN agencies on urban poverty is highly important and that the work carried out by different UN agencies on urban issues needs to be fully integrated at country level. In particular, UN Development Programme and UN-Habitat, with their close on-the-ground operational partnership, should ensure that they work coherently so that impact can be boosted and urban poverty moved higher up the agenda in the countries in which they work.

The Slum Upgrading Facility

107. UN-Habitat manages the Slum Upgrading Facility (SUF), an initiative set up in 2004 to help mobilise financial support for slum upgrading and relocation. DFID provided half of the initial funding for the initiative (US$10 million, or £5.9 million). Other funding includes US$4.5 million from Sweden and $4.8 million from Norway.[185]

108. Under the initiative, slum dwellers are involved in the planning and design of upgrading projects as 'clients' who sit on the SUF Consultative Board, along with banking and finance sector representatives and donors. A key element of the initiative is the establishment of Local Finance Facilities which are designed to improve access to credit for slum dwellers. Ruth McLeod of the Development Planning Unit (DPU) said that, whilst the initiative was still "very young", the SUF, and the Local Finance Facilities in particular, were achieving a great deal:

186

109. The SUF is currently at pilot stage, with projects in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Ghana and Tanzania due to conclude in December 2009. At its most recent meeting, the SUF Consultative Board recommended a two-year extension (up to December 2011) to the pilot phase in order to track the effectiveness of the Local Finance Facilities scheme.[187] UN-Habitat is currently looking for funding for this extension, which they say would also form the basis for exploring the possibilities for expansion beyond the initial four countries.[188] Michael Mutter, Director of the SUF, said that because DFID had made a large funding commitment upfront, they had "been impatient to see the results coming in." He anticipated that there would be "good results to show", and highlighted the "opportunity to continue investing in the process" for the envisaged two-year extension.[189] The DFID Minister was cautious about committing to further funding:

190

110. We commend DFID's decision to provide half of the initial funding for the Slum Upgrading Facility and to contribute to enabling this important project to get off the ground. We support DFID's planned evaluation of the initiative as a basis for future funding decisions, but encourage it to find extra funding to facilitate a two-year extension of the project. Local Finance Facilities have provided a unique forum for bringing together all the major players across a city involved in the slum upgrading process. Results may have been slow in emerging, but once momentum has been gained we believe that the Facilities offer considerable potential for upgrading slum settlements on a large scale.

The Cities Alliance

111. The Cities Alliance is hosted by the World Bank and was established in 1999 by UN-Habitat and the World Bank, with DFID as a founding sponsor. This global coalition of cities and development agencies aims to highlight the benefits and opportunities of urbanisation, and to correct the "anti-urban bias" that we have discussed. It assists with slum upgrading and aims to help cities of all sizes to obtain financial support to develop "city development strategies". DFID is one of 16 country members and works with Cities Alliance on a range of international initiatives. For example, donor funds for the Community-Led Infrastructure Finance Facility are channelled through Cities Alliance to Homeless International.[191] Ruth McLeod of the DPU highlighted that the Alliance had utilised a wide range of different approaches since it was created, from policy support to direct project financing, and that it would be interesting for DFID to reflect on the relative merits of these strategies.[192]

112. The Alliance is subtitled "Cities without Slums", a controversial slogan that according to the DPU "is neither feasible nor desirable in some of its consequences"—the concern being that it may be used to justify slum clearance and forced evictions.[193] Professor Alan Gibson of University College London said that the idea that cities can fully eradicate their slums is "wholly unachievable".[194] The Cities Alliance's attempt to highlight the opportunities of urbanisation is a worthy one and we commend DFID's continued collaboration with the coalition. However, we encourage the Alliance to consider dropping its "Cities without Slums" slogan, which promotes an unworkable outcome that may encourage slum clearance or forced evictions. We see the long-term strategic focus of the Slum Upgrading Facility as equally, if not more, worthy of DFID support as the somewhat problematic Cities Alliance.

THE MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS

The African Development Bank

113. The African Development Bank (AfDB) currently undertakes few urban poverty or slum upgrading projects.[195] DFID said that "currently, AfDB's work in the urban sector mostly takes place under the infrastructure and water departments and does not have an 'urban' focus as such."[196] The AfDB estimates that the urban sector accounts for 15-20% of its portfolio (mostly in water and infrastructure). The Bank is currently developing a new urban strategy, to be completed in 2009, with several pillars including infrastructure, governance and private sector development.[197] The Bank has no dedicated urban department, and, according to DFID, nor are there plans to create one.[198] The AfDB received a record DFID contribution to its most recent replenishment (the Eleventh Replenishment of the African Development Fund, ADF 11); DFID is now the Bank's largest bilateral donor.[199] Improving infrastructure in African countries has been identified as a priority area for ADF 11.[200] The DFID Minister acknowledged that "potentially the African Development Bank does have a sharper role to play on urbanisation and city governance."[201]

114. We were concerned to hear that the African Development Bank (AfDB) currently focuses so little attention on urban poverty. Whilst Africa is still predominantly rural, it is the fastest urbanising region in the world and has the highest proportion of slum dwellers amongst its urban population. This represents a huge and growing problem for the African continent and it is imperative that its regional development bank does more to address the growing crisis of urban poverty. The UK should use its leverage as the largest bilateral donor to the Bank to ensure that the new AfDB urban strategy, currently under development, makes strong commitments to addressing urban poverty. This should include a particular focus on infrastructure, one of the Bank's priority areas and a crucial component of future progress. We recommend that DFID press for a dedicated department on urban development to be set up within the Bank.

The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank

115. The World Bank's engagement with urban issues has grown and includes more than 150 operations in over 60 countries totalling US$10.3 billion of lending commitments.[202] The Bank's 2009 World Development Report, Reshaping Economic Geography, was supported with £450,000 of funding from DFID and contained considerable focus on urban development.[203] The Bank is currently undertaking an Urbanisation Review as a follow up to the Report; this will inform the development of a new urban strategy.[204] DFID said that the Bank's new Strategy "gives greater prominence to governance at the local level, recognising that strengthening cities and towns to manage themselves, rather than as recipients of centrally-driven projects, is a more sustainable way forward."[205]

116. DFID told us that it collaborates "extensively" with the World Bank in India.[206] Other examples of joint working on urban development include: Ghana; Pakistan; Afghanistan; Indonesia; and the West Bank and Gaza. DFID also provides $350,000 through the Cities Alliance for the World Bank's work in Africa to prioritise urban issues within national poverty reduction strategies.[207] The World Bank received a record DFID contribution to its most recent replenishment.[208] We will discuss the Bank's role in urban development further in Chapter 4 when we address the issue of poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs).

117. We received very little evidence on the support given to urban poverty by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and none on the third regional development bank, the Inter-American Development Bank. The ADB has had an increasing focus on the urban sector since 2006 and has had a strategy in place since 1999. It is now working on a Cities Development Initiative for Asia. This initiative promotes investment in Asian cities and is run in collaboration with the German development agency GTZ, with additional funding from the Swedish and Spanish governments.[209] The ADB plans to recruit 20-30 new urban specialists in 2009, which will double the current number of specialised staff in this area. DFID contributed £28.5 million to the ADB in 2007-08.[210]

118. We commend the increased focus on urban development by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. We welcome the World Bank's development of a new urban strategy. Given its substantial funding of the World Bank, we urge DFID to engage fully with the development of the Bank's new strategy and to ensure that it is sufficiently comprehensive, with strong focus on African, as well as Asian, countries. We welcome the Asian Development Bank's Cities Development Initiative for Asia, and its planned increase in specialised urban staff. We encourage the African Development Bank to emulate this enhanced focus and capacity to take forward urban development work.

The role of community-led initiatives

119. Poor urban dwellers themselves represent an active community of campaigners, developers, financiers and drivers of change for the urban environment. Federations of slum and shack dwellers and homeless people have, under the umbrella Slum/Shack Dwellers International, sprung up in more than 20 countries. The federations are mainly formed of savings groups, often managed by women, which undertake a range of slum upgrading, housing construction and community initiatives such as building public toilets (as discussed in Chapter 2). Successful large-scale partnerships have been developed between these federations and local and national governments (for instance, in South Africa, India, Thailand and Malawi).[211]

120. Community-led initiatives for urban development have important 'spin-off' benefits such as women's empowerment. Ruth McLeod of the DPU gave an example from Tamil Nadu in India where community support has enabled 100,000 women from peri-urban areas to join savings and loan groups. Over the years, these groups have acquired a capital base of more than £80 million and have become so influential that they even control local election results.[212] Women's quests for land acquisition and secure tenure can increase their own and their children's opportunities to participate in education and access healthcare.[213]

121. Witnesses believed that there was scope for donors such as DFID to do more to facilitate alliances between urban dwellers and local and national government.[214] David Satterthwaite of IIED said that to do this, "You begin working where the urban poor are very well-organised, and they become your partner."[215] A pre-requisite for this partnership is the presence of urban expertise within development agencies so that they can engage with urban dwellers and central and local government. He said that DFID currently lacks in-country (as well as headquarters-based) urban advisers.[216] We will return to this issue in Chapter 5.

122. Another key step in the process of building partnerships with community groups is building local capacity and governance so that organisations are able to form and operate effectively. This relates back to the points we made earlier about promoting inclusive urban development. The NGO One World Action underlined the need for DFID to allocate adequate resources to urban programmes that strengthen local governance, democracy, citizenship and transparency so that even the most excluded groups can hold their municipal and national governments to account.[217] Caren Levy of the DPU emphasised that supporting communities did not mean letting the state "off the hook" and highlighted the importance of strengthening local government, which can help "localise" aid, enhance democratic governance and ensure "well-planned, rights-based" cities.[218] The DFID Minister told us that he has asked officials to explore what more the Department could do to support city governance.[219]

123. For effective community groups to be formed, some external support is necessary.[220] This is the kind of "bridging" assistance that the Community-Led Infrastructure Finance Facility (CLIFF) is trying to achieve. As we have said, CLIFF is successfully forging new relationships between urban poor organisations, governments, donors and banks—and leveraging considerable financial resources in the process. External funding enables groups to organise themselves and mobilise other supporters, and—once established—to engage with national governments, which can then provide larger-scale funding.[221] We were told that small amounts of money go a long way; community groups have become practised in building housing and infrastructure for a minimum cost. Funds have been managed transparently with loan repayments re-invested into other urban development schemes.[222] We were told about the Community Organisation Development Institute (CODI) in Thailand, which extends loans to communities for settlement upgrading including: land acquisition; livelihood-based activities; and the construction of housing and infrastructure.[223] Under its Baan Maankong Programme—launched with a target to achieve 200 slum-free cities within five years—information generated by communities themselves, including on expenditure, is published on community boards, to promote scrutiny and prevent corruption and bribery.[224]

124. There are funding mechanisms already in place to support community groups. Charities such as Homeless International fund organisations of the urban poor worldwide and we were told that contributing to the organisation was a "great way" to provide support.[225] In 2007, Slum Dwellers International (SDI) developed the Urban Poor Fund International, an innovative, self-managed finance facility that acts as the financial arm by which SDI transfers capital directly to slum dwellers who are undertaking urban improvement schemes that they have negotiated with local and municipal authorities.[226] Funds are channelled to the SDI via the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and other institutions, but the SDI makes all funding decisions on behalf of the Fund. Initial financial support for the Fund included $10 million from the Gates Foundation.[227] David Satterthwaite estimated that improvements in housing and basic services for 30,000 urban poor households had been achieved by the Fund for less than £1.8 million over six years.[228] An extra £5-10 million annually would guarantee that the Fund could reach new groups wanting to begin urban development projects.[229]

125. We were impressed to hear that federations of poor urban dwellers are facilitating slum upgrading and urban improvement schemes in more than 20 countries, with large-scale partnerships being developed between these groups and governments in several instances. We believe that supporting community-led initiatives not only strengthens citizenship and boosts democracy, but is also an incredibly cost-efficient way of promoting urban development. Evidence shows that small amounts of external financing can help deliver substantial development gains.

126. We believe that DFID should boost its funding for urban community-led initiatives. We recommend that DFID begin funding the Urban Poor Fund International, an existing financing mechanism that has brought about improvements to housing and basic services for 30,000 households for less than £1.8 million over the past six years. If this success can be replicated, as little as £5-10 million of additional DFID funding could potentially reach another 150,000 households.

The role of local government

SHARING OF EXPERTISE BY UK LOCAL GOVERNMENT

127. Local government authorities in developing countries play a central role in urban development. They bear responsibility for town planning, run municipal services, develop infrastructure and act as the official link with communities. However, we were told by a number of witnesses that the opportunity for sharing UK expertise with local government in developing countries is currently under-exploited.[230]

128. The UK Local Government Alliance for International Development (LG AID), which comprises five local government agencies, suggested that DFID could support this sharing of expertise through actions such as:

adopting a departmental strategy for strengthening local government and working in partnership with UK local government to implement this;
working with the local government constituency worldwide to strengthen urban authorities' capacity to plan for urban growth and slum upgrading; and
supporting the sharing of UK expertise in areas such as: business and financial services; the "greening" of urban economies (developing jobs, technologies and approaches that produce environmental benefits); regeneration; climate change mitigation and adaptation; and local data collection and analysis.

129. These proposals have been put forward to DFID by the Local Government Association as a "Manifesto on International Development".[231] It is suggested that they could build on existing exchange schemes by individual UK councils. For example, Warwickshire council has facilitated staff exchanges with cities in Sierra Leone on waste management, health and staff development. Lancashire County Council has a longstanding partnership with the town of Gulu in Uganda which helps increase resilience to climate change.[232]

130. Adopting such strategies would follow a lead established by countries such as Norway and Canada, where development agencies fund the deployment of local government practitioners to contribute to development projects internationally.[233] For example, the Canadian Municipal Association collaborates with the Canadian International Development Agency to provide expertise to support local governance and basic service provision through partnerships with countries across the developing world. An annual award is provided to Canadian municipalities that have made an outstanding contribution to international development.[234] Other approaches from European countries include a commitment of 0.7% of local authority budgets towards partnering with cities abroad.[235] Richard Shaw, Chair of LG AID, said that learning from such partnerships would be a two-way process and that the UK could learn from developing countries as well as vice versa.[236] He believed that DFID should take the initiative to enter into dialogue with local government, who would: "want a policy framework". He said that, "There may need to be some encouragement and incentivisation, and these things do not just happen on a whim. They need to be planned quite carefully.[237] Geoffrey Payne echoed this view:

238

In its recent response to our Report on Aid Under Pressure, DFID acknowledged that there were "significant benefits" to be gained from partnership with local government organisations and provided us with information on its work with the Local Government Association to promote collaboration on development.[239]

131. We believe that a key opportunity exists for UK local government expertise to be shared on a more systematic basis with municipal authorities in developing countries and we welcome DFID's acknowledgement of this in its response to our earlier report. DFID's ability to expand its human resources is currently constrained but expertise on urban issues exists within many UK local authorities. This seems to us to create the perfect opportunity to tap into an available but currently under-exploited source of knowledge. We recommend that DFID look at partnership models used by Canada and Norway whereby small amounts of international development funds are used to support the logistical arrangements for sending local government staff overseas. It is important that the objective of such projects should be to facilitate capacity-building and should involve robust on-the-ground collaboration and strategic follow-up. This will require strong commitment from DFID, the Department for Communities and Local Government and local government if it is to be effective. But we believe that a relatively modest amount of funding could have great impact in strengthening local government capacity in areas such as financial management, governance and accountability, the 'greening' of urban economies and regeneration. This would be a two-way learning process and would bring mutual benefit.

IMPROVED COLLABORATION ACROSS WHITEHALL

132. It is clear that for DFID to support UK local government to participate in international development, it would need to co-ordinate closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).[240] Richard Shaw said that currently DFID co-ordination with DCLG on urban development and local government appeared to be lacking.[241]

133. The DFID Minister told us that the two departments collaborate on the Cities Alliance and the Commonwealth Local Government Programme. DFID also combines with DCLG to provide the UK representation at the biennial World Urban Fora with DCLG taking the lead. Iain Wright MP, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DCLG, attended the Fourth World Urban Forum, held in Nanjing in November 2008, but DFID acknowledged that "otherwise the UK input was limited".[242] The DFID Minister told us:

We do work with DCLG on any international dimension of their work. For example, [...] [at the] World Urban Forum [...] it is a DCLG Minister that leads the delegation, but there are usually senior DFID officials in that delegation.

Geoffrey Payne highlighted that DFID sent just one representative as part of the UK delegation in Nanjing.[243] DFID told us that discussion about UK participation in the Fifth World Urban Forum in Rio de Janeiro in March 2010 is "on-going".[244]

134. Within DFID's submission to us, details of co-operation with other UK Government departments on urbanisation and poverty were limited to a description of its work with the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China).[245] Government action on urbanisation and poverty in BRIC countries falls mainly under three of the 30 Public Service Agreements (PSAs),[246] within the overall heading of "A more secure, fair and environmentally sustainable world":

PSA 27: Lead the global effort to avoid dangerous climate change (lead department: Department for Energy and Climate Change);
PSA 28: Secure a healthy and natural environment for today and in the future (lead department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA); delivery partners include Department for Communities and Local Government); and
PSA 29: Reduce poverty in poorer countries through quicker progress towards the MDGs (lead department: DFID; delivery partners include HM Treasury, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DEFRA).[247]

DFID did not provide us with details of UK Government co-operation on urbanisation and poverty in developing countries other than in relation to these four major economies. It acknowledges that "greater interaction with other Whitehall government partners is possible."[248]

135. Co-operation between DFID and the Department for Communities and Local Government on urban development currently appears to be weak. For example, DFID sent just one staff member as part of the joint delegation to the last World Urban Forum held in 2008. Closer joint working will be necessary if DFID is to provide support for UK local government to contribute to international development and it will only become more important as the world continues to urbanise. We recommend that, in response to this Report, DFID provide us with information on how it intends to improve joint working. We also encourage DFID to use the forthcoming Fifth World Urban Forum in Rio de Janeiro in March 2010 as an opportunity to move towards new, closer working practices.

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

136. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) were introduced by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in 1999 as a framework for negotiations between major bilateral and multilateral donors, partner country governments and civil society. They are produced by developing countries to describe macroeconomic, structural and social approaches to growth and poverty reduction, and to highlight financing needs to external lenders. National priorities, policies and action plans are set out, often including quantitative targets and monitoring frameworks.[249]

137. We were told that the lack of prioritisation of urban development within PRSPs is a major barrier to progress. Homeless International said that PRSPs "show a general lack of focus on, and understanding of, urban poverty issues".[250] They attributed this partly to the lack of civil society involvement in the PRSP process within contexts where organisations of the urban poor are not recognised.[251] David Satterthwaite of IIED pointed out that, if you were to search a 300-page PRSP for the words "slums" or "squatter settlements", you would find nothing: "It just is not in the conception of the people that develop the PSRPs that there is a thing called "urban poverty" that has importance".[252] He blamed this on World Bank staff.[253] Since PRSPs were introduced, criticism has been directed at the Bank's powerful role in developing the Papers, with some arguing that macroeconomic policy choices have not been adequately debated and that few countries have felt able to deviate from standard approaches recommended by the Bank.[254]

138. DFID has provided $350,000 through the Cities Alliance for the World Bank's work in five African countries on "Mainstreaming Urban in Poverty Reduction Strategies."[255] Ruth McLeod thought DFID could have a "tremendously strong" role in supporting the capacity of agencies working on urban development to "make that voice louder" within PRSP consultation processes.[256] The DFID Minister told us:

257

139. We believe that urban issues require far more emphasis within developing countries' national Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). We disagree with DFID that implicit references to urban issues within PRSP texts are sufficient. Urban poverty will only be prioritised when it is made visible as an issue on national agendas with the necessary political will underpinning firm targets. We believe that achieving higher prioritisation within PRSPs will require concerted efforts from key players in the process, including the World Bank, civil society and major donors. We recommend that DFID make much more vigorous efforts to encourage development partners to ensure that urban poverty reduction is given specific and detailed coverage in their strategy papers.

174 UN-Habitat, UN-Habitat: For a Better Urban Future Back

175 UN News Centre press release, "UN agency receives major cash injection to ensure adequate shelter for all" (29 April 2009). The total included a "general purpose budget of $66 million". Back

176 Q 14 Back

177 Q 14 Back

178 UN-Habitat, "The present funding of UN-Habitat" prepared for the UN-Habitat Donors meeting in Seville, 15-16 October 2008, p.5, online at http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/5883_5454_Present%20funding.pdf and Q 16 Back

179 Q 184 and Q 16 Back

180 Q 16 Back

181 UN-Habitat, "The present funding of UN-Habitat" prepared for the UN-Habitat Donors meeting in Seville, 15-16 October 2008, p.5, online at http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/5883_5454_Present%20funding.pdf Back

182 UN Development Assistance Frameworks are the common strategic framework for the operational activities of UN agencies at country level. Back

183 DFID, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future, Cm 7656, July 2009, paras 6.10-6.19 Back

184 Q 16. For example, the £60 million UK funding for the joint UNDP-UN-Habitat urban development programme in Bangladesh is channelled through UNDP and on to UN-Habitat. Back

185 Ev 88 Back