Written evidence submitted by Cormac Davey
PUBLIC SUBMISSION
TO THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
I write first as an interested and concerned
member of the public who attended two public sessions of the recent
International Development Select Committee. The first was on the
23 June and the second on 1 July. Secondly, I wish to bring to
your attention that I worked for DFID from 1996 to 2004 as a Physical
Planning Adviser.
The level of debate was excellent and I commend the
work of the Select Committee. It is good to see democracy in action
and to see such important debates taking place.
The reason I write is to highlight that in my view
urbanisation is not currently being addressed sufficiently by
DFID. While I recognise DFID's innovative work, particularly in
India, there does seem to be at present a lack of policy focus
and lead on the issues, particularly in using practice and research
to drive advocacy, international development policy/ funding mechanisms
and political will to support cities, mayors, local government
capacity and federations of poor people living in slums.
Set out below I offer a perspective on how the
understanding and response to urbanisation has developed and also
been more recently fragmented within DFID. This has hindered a
co-ordinated progress along the lines that the Select Committee
may want to see and that was highlighted in DFID's own strategy
"Meeting the Challenge of Urban Poverty", published
in 2001.
— I joined DFID in 1996 (Associate Professional
Officer) as an Assistant Physical Planning Officer, and worked
in HQ. At that time the issues of the Physical Planning Unit in
the Engineering Division were mainly related to appropriate shelter
technology and urban planning issues. It was a marginal unit at
that time.
— During the period 1996-2000 the thrust
of this unit broadened to address the urbanisation/urban poverty
agenda more fully. Critically, the UK government lead responsibility
for the UN Habitat shifted from the Foreign Office to DFID. The
Engineering Division took the executive and administrative responsibility
for developing that relationship.
— Around 2000, the DFID Engineering Division
based in HQ changed its name to the Infrastructure and Urban Development
Division (IUDD). This was in recognition of the growing issue
of urbanisation and urban poverty. During this period (2002-03)
many new initiatives were developed by the IUDD. As a result DFID
played a key role in supporting and developing the international
infrastructure to raise the issues and ensure that international
co-ordination, advocacy and funding to address urbanisation was
improved.
— This change and new emphasis resulted
in many new initiatives, which are still relevant today such as
the Cities Alliance, CLIFF and the DFID Urban Strategy "Meeting
the Challenge of Urban Poverty". I believe this was a truly
innovative time.
— It was not all plain sailing as there
was, as one would expect, some organisational opposition and competition
to the idea that Engineers and Planners should lead this important
work, as well as whether Urbanisation should have such a profile
within DFID. There was a dominant view, despite the knowledge/evidence
that cities are engines for growth and infrastructure directly
contributes to poverty reduction that rural poverty was a priority
and that urbanisation was the result of failed rural development,
despite the evidence that it is tax revenues generated in urban
areas that provide the largest share of resources for rural development
programmes. The strategy paper despite support from the then SoS—Claire
Short, was not fully supported within DFID's professional groups.
— I was at the time responsible for the
development of that urban strategy and remember that a big effort
was made to consult across DFID and its partners, drawing on extensive
research and experience. As a result, it is considered a good
strategy—it comes from a multi-disciplinary perspective.
— While on a DFID secondment during 2002-04
with the UN HABITAT/UNDP I witnessed from afar the restructuring
of DFID. The IUDD was dismantled. At the time the unit in IUDD
responsible for Urban was also dismantled. This resulted in the
loss of huge knowledge and resources.
— Among others, I was not able to get a
position within DFID's new structure and left in 2004. I have
since worked outside the Government sector. Many of my other urban
colleagues who have remained in DFID have moved to other departments
dealing with non-urban themes. Many others have left DFID and
pursued their careers elsewhere. This highlights the loss of expertise
and resources, which is critical at this time given the fact that
more people are today living in cities.
— The restructuring led to the formation
of thematic teams. One such team I believe was developed was Urban
and Rural Change. Each team was required to demonstrate its value.
I understand that this team no longer exists. My view is that
the Urban Strategy, while acknowledged as a fine document, does
not present a living strategy with DFID at present. Although many
of the highlighted initiatives in India, CLIFF and Cities Alliance
continue the work and approach recommended, this still represents
a drop in the ocean of DFID work and of the work needed globally
to address the urbanisation of poverty.
Finally, while I acknowledge DFID's assertion
that they have sufficient staff working on addressing urban issues
and qualified to do so (42 Infrastructure and Urban Development
Staff), the reality of these figures needs to be looked at more
closely.
— Firstly the Minister identified DFID's
urban focal point as Mr Yusaf Samiullah. Mr Samiullah's, official
position is Deputy Director and Head of Profession, Infrastructure
Policy and Research Division. This does not denote clearly a focal
point for urban issues, particularly to an outside audience.
— Secondly, all Engineering and Physical
Planning Advisers became Infrastructure and Urban Development
Advisers in 2002. This is I believe a little misleading. The advisers
that remain are largely engineers. As DFID know, urban poverty
reduction requires a multi-disciplinary and multi-sector approach.
Engineering is but one important professional discipline. I feel
DFID currently lacks a number of other required skills such as
local governance experts, but particularly in the built environment
professions, such as planners, housing experts, surveyors etc.,
able to advise and assist national and local governments and other
stakeholders facing the challenge of managing urbanization and
urban growth.
It demonstrates further my previous points that
urban is not a priority and does not have a clear policy direction
within DFID. This is a shame as DFID has a huge portfolio of experience
and has played a key role with other organisations in developing
many innovative approaches to both understand and address urban
poverty. My own view is, which is in keeping with the oral evidence,
that a detailed review should be undertaken to assess the impact
of the Urban Policy in the light of the current global context
and DFID's restructuring during this decade. This could lead to
important recommendations for finding a way to meet the challenges
of urbanisation/urban poverty in a way that reflects current realities
and public opinion more appropriately.
Once again I have enjoyed the debate and hope
to see a greater attention to the issues of Urbanisation in developing
countries by the UK Government in the future
I would like to wish the Select Committee all
the best in their continuing work.
6 July 2009
|
