House of Commons - Urbanisation and Poverty - International Development Committee

Urbanisation and Poverty - International Development Committee Contents

5 IMPLICATIONS FOR DFID'S ORGANISATIONAL RESPONSE

140. After considering the role played by other stakeholders in addressing urban poverty, we will now turn the focus back to DFID itself. In this chapter, we will assess the implications of our analysis for DFID's organisational response to urban poverty, especially the Department's prioritisation of where and how to deploy resources.

The visibility of urban issues within DFID

STAFFING AND EXPERTISE

141. The view of a number of witnesses was that urban issues are not sufficiently visible within DFID. This is partly because, as we have said, the Department does not always label work addressing urban contexts as 'urban development'. Comments by the DFID Minister underlined this approach. In relation to DFID's record on advocating for urban poverty, he said "I think we have [advocated on urbanisation]; we just have not necessarily done it under the banner of urbanisation."[258] This approach is evident in the Department's recent White Paper, which contains just three references to the urban context.[259] Ruth McLeod of the DPU said that the Community-Led Infrastructure Finance Facility was an example of an initiative that DFID would not necessarily put forward as an "urban" initiative—it is categorised more on the basis of financial sector development.[260]

142. The decision not to label programmes as "urban", but to see the urban context as cross-cutting—in the same way as, say, gender issues are treated within DFID—has, according to witnesses, contributed to a "dismantling" of expertise within the Department.[261] As we have said, DFID's Infrastructure and Urban Development Department was closed following the 2003-04 organisational restructuring.[262] A team called Urban and Rural Change was set up, but has since also been shut down.[263] These moves were in spite of the pledge made in DFID's 2001 Strategy Paper to "build on and enhance our professional cadres to ensure that we are providing the right kind of support to the urban development process, at both policy and field level."[264]

143. DFID says that, whilst the Department has no dedicated team or unit, it still has 42 Infrastructure and Urban Development Advisers deployed "in various ways". These comprise 19 UK-based staff and 23 located either overseas or within external organisations. The Department told us that these staff "collectively [...] comprise DFID's Infrastructure Cadre".[265] Our understanding of this statement is that all Infrastructure and Urban Development Advisers are drawn from the infrastructure cadre.

144. Witnesses said that, notwithstanding the existence of this "virtual group",[266] vital expertise has been lost from within DFID, although the Minister disputed this.[267] Geoffrey Payne said:

268

145. We see a number of problems relating to urban expertise within DFID. Firstly, the lack of a formal team or unit means that urban issues are less visible within DFID. As Caren Levy of the DPU said, "there is not necessarily a coherent community of practice within DFID which recognises urban development as some kind of real context in which development is taking place".[269] Without this "community of practice", it seems to us that it is difficult for DFID to generate effective policy analysis, for instance relating to how to replicate good practice from the Department's programmes in Asia within African countries.

146. Secondly, the lack of a designated urban team means that there is no clear focal point within DFID with which external groups can engage. Andy Rutherford of One World Action said that the UK-based group of NGOs and other organisations working on urban poverty "do not have a counterpart to work with in DFID."[270] Ruth McLeod of the DPU said in relation to urban issues:

271

DFID told us that the Infrastructure Head of Profession based in the Department's headquarters is the first point of contact on urbanisation issues.[272] As one witness said, the title and remit of this post "does not denote clearly a focal point for urban issues, particularly to an outside audience."[273]

147. A third problem relates to the fact that expertise is drawn solely from DFID's infrastructure cadre. An urban specialist previously employed by DFID, Cormac Davey, told us that most of the Infrastructure and Urban Development Advisers who have been retained following the Department's restructuring are engineers. Yet urban poverty reduction is complex and requires a multi-disciplinary approach.[274] Mr Davey said that DFID currently does not bring other crucial skills, such as urban planning, housing and surveying, to bear on its urban development work.[275] Other professions, such as social development, are likely to be needed for basic service provision within urban centres. Slum upgrading, in particular, is highly multi-sectoral in nature, requiring a range of expertise including governance, infrastructure (water, sanitation, energy, housing, transportation), services (health, education), and climate change.[276] According to Homeless International, this requires "integration and coordination of activities and resources which is not aided by DFID's departmental and funding fragmentation".[277]

148. A fourth and final problem with the current configuration of expertise within DFID is that many country programmes do not employ an urban specialist. David Satterthwaite of the IIED said that in-country urban expertise had been lost over time and that this has led to missed opportunities in partner countries—for example, in supporting community-led initiatives:

278

149. We believe that DFID's reluctance to label programmes as "urban" has contributed to a decline in the visibility of urban development within the Department. This decline is linked to a recent period of fragmentation of urban expertise within DFID, with specialised staff now scattered confusingly across the UK Headquarters and international programmes. Without a coherent grouping, the Department's capacity to carry out effective policy analysis and programming for this complex issue risks being compromised. Furthermore, the lack of a designated urban team or unit makes it difficult for external organisations to engage with DFID on urban poverty issues. Although it is for DFID to decide on the precise configuration of its urban expertise, we recommend that it put structures in place that clearly convey how and where its core staff for urban development are located.

150. We recommend that this urban poverty team or unit, in whatever form it takes, reflect the multi-sectoral nature of urban development. We believe that DFID's current reliance on its infrastructure cadre for urban expertise is misplaced. Issues such as slum upgrading require inputs from a range of DFID advisory cadres, including governance, infrastructure, social development and climate change. We believe that all of DFID's more substantial country programmes should include urban advisers. This is essential if DFID is to capitalise on opportunities to push urban poverty higher up national agendas.

MAKING BETTER USE OF THE RESEARCH AND PRACTITIONER COMMUNITIES

151. Caren Levy of the DPU told us that one way to achieve multi-sectoral expertise within DFID would be to extend beyond DFID Headquarters to a wider group of people drawn from both the UK and locally in countries where DFID works who could "feed into that community of practice in different ways.[279] A wide range of both UK-based and international research, non-governmental and private sector organisations work on urbanisation issues. Slum dwellers themselves represent an expert practitioner base. UN-Habitat representative Paul Taylor told us:

280

152. Witnesses were very keen to collaborate with DFID on urban development. For example, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors told us it could help "raise awareness of the range of skills on offer; build local capacity; and promote a wider understanding of the fundamental importance of a properly functioning land, property and construction market for any successful or developing economy."[281] Geoffrey Payne told us that he was aware that UK-based young professionals in the urban sector were "very, very keen" to contribute to international development.[282]

153. Another way in which DFID could bring in external knowledge would be to prioritise urban development within its research programme, which, according to one witness, currently has no urban component.[283] DFID launched a new Research Strategy in April 2008 that doubled its financing for research to £1 billion over the five years of the strategy. The Department told us that this newly strengthened research capacity "could be deployed to deepen understanding and improve targeting of interventions" regarding urbanisation.[284] In Chapter 3, we recommended that the Strategy should help fill the current gaps in detailed understanding of the nature of disease and health problems in slums and informal settlements. In addition, the DPU suggested a research and development agenda for DFID covering topics such as: documenting innovation; managing urban growth; understanding the changing nature of slums; urban planning in the context of climate change; and understanding the causes and mechanisms of forced evictions.[285] DFID is developing a multi-million pound Climate and Development Knowledge Network (previously known as the Centre for Climate and Development) which will provide research and advisory services.[286]

154. We believe that another way of strengthening DFID's "community of practice" on urban development would be to make better use of the research and practitioner base both within the UK and internationally. The UK has world-reputed university departments, research institutions, NGOs and professional organisations working on the urban sector. We recommend that DFID develop an approach to reach out to these groups and make effective use of the skills and expertise that they have to offer.

155. We recommend that DFID use its new Research Strategy to fund research into the most effective policies and interventions for addressing urban poverty. There are many potential topics for such research, but we believe that managing and understanding slum growth should be at the top of the agenda given the urgency of reaching the MDGs. We also reiterate our recommendation that the Strategy should help fill the current gaps in detailed understanding of the nature of disease and health problems in slums and informal settlements. The intersections between urbanisation, urban poverty and climate change is another crucial topic, and we suggest that the Department's new Climate and Development Knowledge Network look at funding such research work.

An urban strategy

156. We believe that another pre-requisite for the re-establishment of a coherent body of urban expertise within DFID is the development of a formal strategy for addressing urban poverty. As we have said, DFID developed such a strategy in 2001. Meeting the Challenge of Poverty in Urban Areas was a comprehensive document that committed DFID to make "a full and substantial contribution" to addressing urban poverty.[287] The Strategy Paper was credited by witnesses as an "excellent" and "progressive" publication.[288]

157. When we challenged the DFID Minister about the lack of a new strategy, he told us that the 2001 paper was still "very relevant" and that he did not anticipate a new strategy on the subject being produced at this stage.[289] He said that the Department was working on a new infrastructure paper, which would include some content on the challenges of urbanisation.[290] He could not give us a date for the publication of this paper.

158. The Minister's view that no new strategy is required conflicted with the views of witnesses. The DPU said that a DFID urban development policy is "urgently needed" and that "this could be a two-pronged policy to support both central and local governments".[291] Geoffrey Payne believed that a "review and updating" of the 2001 Strategy Paper would be "a good step forward in building up an urban expertise base."[292] Richard Shaw of the Local Government Alliance for International Development told us that "the pace of urbanisation is emerging as such an important issue that it would be surprising if DFID did not develop at least a strategy towards [it]."[293] David Satterthwaite argued that, without a formal strategy or policy, urban specialists within DFID could not bring their knowledge to bear.[294]

159. We believe that a new strategy may also help DFID to communicate more clearly how its work addresses urban poverty. We feel there are areas of confusion around the Department's work which it needs to clarify for both the UK public and partner countries. For example, we cannot understand why there are programmes in India labelled as "urban development" but not in African countries. DFID has not given us a coherent picture of how its programmes within Africa promote urban development. A strategy could help explain these issues and set out the full range of DFID's interventions and policies for urban poverty.

160. We believe that, given the pace and scale of urbanisation, DFID should produce a new strategy paper on how it intends to address urban poverty. Such a paper would help to raise the profile of urban development both within and outside DFID, and enable urban specialists within DFID to bring their knowledge to bear. A new strategy would also help communicate more clearly DFID's work on urban poverty, which is currently subject to some confusion in terms of where the Department works and what its priorities are. We are not satisfied that the development of a new infrastructure paper will go far enough towards meeting these objectives and believe that what is needed is a comprehensive document along the lines of DFID's well-received 2001 urban strategy paper.

Replicating successes from Asia in Africa

161. As we said in Chapter 3, the majority of DFID's slum upgrading and urban development work is currently in South Asia.[295] DFID's urban development projects and programmes in India—worth £236 million—are benefiting 2.9 million slum dwellers.[296] But the Department has far less of an urban focus in Africa. We are concerned that the rapid expansion of urban populations in a number of African countries could trigger a humanitarian crisis in some cities in as little as five years' time, if appropriate action is not taken.

162. Witnesses believed that DFID should extend its focus to rapidly urbanising countries in Africa.[297] They gave wide-ranging suggestions of groups, issues and initiatives in African contexts that would benefit from DFID support:

the ability of civil society to hold governments to account for urban development;
community-led initiatives amongst slum dwellers in Africa—and the sharing of good practice by international federations of the urban poor;
microfinance initiatives in urban settings;
health, especially mental health services; and
marginalised groups such as street children.[298]

DFID has examples of good practice for addressing a number of these and many other urban development issues from its India programme. Geoffrey Payne told us that:

299

Transferable lessons should not just come from DFID's own programmes. There are many other examples of slum upgrading and urban development work from Asia—for example, community-led sanitation initiatives in India, Thailand and Pakistan—that could potentially be replicable within African countries.[300]

163. Andy Rutherford of One World Action was concerned that "institutionally there has been a weakness in the lesson learning and sharing within DFID".[301] He said that identifying and disseminating successful aspects of a DFID-funded urban development initiative in Africa, the Luanda Urban Poverty Programme in Angola (LUPP, which has received DFID support since 1999), had been an "uphill challenge".[302]Yet there are many potentially replicable aspects of the LUPP, especially around urban governance.[303] David Satterthwaite told us that:

304

164. The DFID Minister told us that expertise from different country programmes is shared by infrastructure and urban development advisers during departmental "retreats".[305] He made the point that a key determinant of success in India has been the presence of high-level political will to address urban poverty, and that this would need to be present within other countries if DFID was to have an impact.[306] He said that another influencing factor in DFID's closer engagement within Asian countries was that they had a higher level of community organisation and participation than African ones.[307]

165. We recommend that DFID assess with urgency how it can replicate within African countries successful strategies from its well-established urban development programme in India. Africa is the world's fastest-urbanising region and has the highest proportion of slum dwellers. It therefore needs immediate assistance with urban development. DFID has successful examples of urban interventions from its India programme. It also has a handful of successful urban programmes within Africa, such as the Luanda Urban Poverty Programme in Angola. We recommend that the Department look carefully at which of these strategies could be replicated across DFID's African programmes. Of course, some approaches will be context-specific. Their replication will also depend on the presence of high-level political will to address urban poverty within national governments. However, we do not believe that the fact that there is currently greater community participation in some Asian countries than African ones is a reason not to focus on urban development programmes in Africa.

166. We believe that DFID's ability to replicate approaches from Asia in African countries will depend on its ability to re-configure expertise—so that major African programmes have access to at least one urban poverty specialist—and make better use of research that documents successful strategies for urban development from around the world.

DFID's role in moving urban poverty up the international agenda

167. Our final suggestion for DFID's response to urban poverty relates to the global political arena. The DPU believes that, "just as it did in the [...] 1990s, DFID should once again play a leading and progressive role in the global urban agenda and arenas of debate."[308] Caren Levy told us:

309

Geoffrey Payne highlighted that a Shelter, Land, and Urban Management (SLUM) Assistance Act has just been put forward in the US House of Representatives, aiming to make addressing the challenges of slums a higher priority in US foreign aid programmes. He said that "DFID would do well to follow a similar step".[310]

168. Clearly, this would require co-ordinated UK Government action and may or may not be a realistic option in the short term. But higher international prioritisation of urban issues is undoubtedly needed. Geoffrey Payne said that "constraints to progress in urban development are ultimately about governance and political will, rather than resources or know how."[311] As we have said, building this political will requires a committed approach by all stakeholders, including the prioritisation of urban issues within national poverty reduction strategies and concerted action from UN agencies working in urban contexts.

169. Some commentators discern an element of anti-urban bias within certain developing country governments, especially in Africa. The NGO Habitat for Humanity perceived a similar reluctance to engage with urban issues within some donor agencies. They believed that the main reasons for the lack of donor focus on urban poverty are donors' beliefs that rural poverty is "both more prevalent and more acute in absolute dollar terms", and that urban poverty is highly complex and requires multi-sectoral approaches, "something aid agencies struggle with due to structural reasons".[312] They said that "while it is true that urban poverty may be more complex, it is also true that if handled well, the impacts on the poor can be felt in much greater numbers and in more lasting, sustainable ways".[313] It certainly struck us that the sheer concentration of people in many urban centres should make it possible for donor funds to be particularly cost-efficient when spent in these contexts.

170. It is difficult to comment on DFID's overall prioritisation of urban and rural poverty because the Department categorises assistance by sector but not by type of beneficiary (for example, the rural versus the urban poor).[314] A 2007 study by the National Audit Office (NAO) asked DFID country teams for their estimates of the proportion of their expenditure benefiting the rural poor. Fewer than half described their country programme as more rural than non-rural. However, the NAO found that, of a sample of 515 DFID projects and programmes, approximately two-thirds of bilateral assistance had a rural focus. It is worth noting that, in the same countries, around three-quarters of the poor lived in rural areas.[315]

171. We reiterate our recommendation that DFID and other donors advocate for increased attention to urban poverty by all partner governments, especially those in Africa. We also recommend that DFID take a leading role in helping to build political support for this approach within the international community. None of the changes that we have suggested in this report will be possible unless urban poverty is given higher priority at the global level. Unless the full range of development actors, including other donors, the UN and international civil society, is convinced of the need to act, enhanced DFID efforts will not be able to achieve additional funding and resources to address urban poverty.

172. The ability to generate political will amongst developing country governments will require donor agencies to demonstrate that they themselves attach sufficient priority to urban, as opposed to rural, contexts. We believe that seeking to overcome the challenges associated with the complexity of the urban sector is not only the right thing to do but is potentially a cost-efficient development strategy, offering sustainable solutions to large numbers of people. It is difficult for us to comment on DFID's own prioritisation because the Department categorises assistance by sector but not by type of beneficiary. However, we recommend that DFID carefully assess the overall balance of its support to urban and rural poverty and keep this under review as the world continues to urbanise.

258 Q 182 Back

259 DFID, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future, Cm 7656, July 2009, p.41, p.42 and p.70 Back

260 Q 76 Back

261 Q 75 Back

262 Ev 71 Back

263 Ev 71 Back

264 DFID Strategy Paper, 'Meeting the Challenge of Poverty in Urban Areas' (2001), para 5.4.17 Back

265 Ev 99 Back

266 Q 55 [Andy Rutherford] Back

267 Q 171 Back

268 Ev 151 Back

269 Q 75 Back