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" initiativeit
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-cuttingin the same
way as, say, gender issues are treated within DFIDhas,
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:
Urban development and management is essentially
a subject requiring expertise rather than massive funding. A major
reason for DFID's high reputation in the past is that it possessed
and deployed a cadre of competent and committed professionals
working with local professionals and agencies to build local capability
to address urban related issues. Repeated reorganizations have
squandered DFID's wealth of experience and professional expertise
on development during the last ten years.[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:
It has been the experience of quite a lot of
agencies that there is no-one to talk to [in DFID]. You may have
something really important to bring to the table to discuss, but
unless you have got a relationship which is ongoing [...] it is
really difficult because there is not a focus.[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 countriesfor example,
in supporting community-led initiatives:
Say, in country X there is a good opportunity;
the central government is committed, the local government has
possibilities and the urban poor are organised; there is no one
in DFID that actually will talk to them. That is the difficulty
for me; there is no knowledge, no expertise, no commitment to
address urban issues. There are exceptions: the office in India
has some very good urban specialists. In a sense, you need this
in every country.[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:
DFID and the UK generally punch below their weight
in [urbanisation] [...] The UK has, particularly in terms of its
university base, a massive comparative advantage over other donor
governments. It has a large number of institutions that have a
worldwide reputation for excellence, yet what we are seeing is
that the support they have historically received from the UK Government
has been dropping away over recent years. We think there is a
lot of scope to use the UK resource base in a more proactive fashion
than we are doing at the moment.[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 Indiaworth £236
millionare 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 Africaand 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:
DFID is doing some extremely good things and
those need to be built on. [...] [In India's Bihar State] a new
Chief Minister is being supported by £50 million, a six-year
programme of DFID funding, to improve urban governance, land administration
policy and public sector capability and management. [...] That
is very much the sort of example on which DFID might do well to
expand.[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 Asiafor example, community-led
sanitation initiatives in India, Thailand and Pakistanthat
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:
Slum dwellers in Africa have learned from the
slum dwellers in India. There is this amazing exchange. Women's
savings groups which formed originally from pavement dwellers
in India have gone all around Africa [...] It would be nice if
DFID did the same.[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 expertiseso that major African programmes
have access to at least one urban poverty specialistand
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:
DFID has an advocacy role to play [...] In the
same way as DFID has [...] played an important role in raising
climate change issues on to international agendas, it has the
same role to do with urban development. It has to make the arguments
and has to engage with partners in the same way as it does with
everything else.[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
270
Q 55 [Andy Rutherford] Back
271
Q 76 Back
272
Ev 99 Back
273
Ev 71 Back
274
Ev 112 Back
275
Ev 71 Back
276
Ev 119 Back
277
Ev 118 Back
278
Q 136 [David Satterthwaite] and Q 146 Back
279
Q 77 and Ev 151 Back
280
Q 18 Back
281
Ev 160 Back
282
Q 122 and Ev 151 Back
283
Ev 171 Back
284
Ev 81 Back
285
Ev 107 Back
286
DFID, Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2008-09, para 2.51.
See also Fifth Special Report from the Committee, Session 2008-09,
HC 1009, Sustainable Development in a Changing Climate: Government
Response to the Fifth Report of the Committee, Session 2008-09,
response to recommendation in para 152 Back
287
DFID Strategy Paper, 'Meeting the Challenge of Poverty in Urban
Areas' (2001), paras 5.2.3 Back
288
Q 75 and Ev 151 Back
289
Qq 168-169 Back
290
Q 168 Back
291
Ev 106 Back
292
Ev 151 Back
293
Q 103 Back
294
Q 137 [David Satterthwaite] Back
295
Ev 77 Back
296
Ev 77 and Ev 78 Back
297
For example, Q 139 Back
298
Respectively: Qq 57, 59 and 140;Ev 158; Ev 61; and Q 57 Back
299
Q 102 Back
300
Q 142 Back
301
Q 54 [Andy Rutherford] Back
302
Q 52 Back
303
Ev 144 Back
304
Q 140 Back
305
Q 177 Back
306
Q 187 Back
307
Q 176 Back
308
Ev 106 Back
309
Q 78 Back
310
Ev 151 Back
311
Ev 151 Back
312
Ev 112 Back
313
Ev 112 Back
314
National Audit Office, "Tackling Rural Poverty in Developing
Countries" (2007), p.11 Back
315
National Audit Office, "Tackling rural poverty in developing
countries" (2007), p.11 Back
|