Written evidence submitted by Geoffrey
Payne, Brenda Murphy and Cormac Davey
REFLECTIONS ON
THE SESSION
HELD ON
23 JUNE 2009
Experience and discussions during the IDC session
suggest that DFID be encouraged to revise its approach to funding,
the development of its urban expertise and the level of priority
it attaches to urban issues in order to be able to meaningfully
contribute towards the problems of urban poverty. At a time when
more than half of the world's population lives in urban areas
and slum populations are projected to increase from under one
billion in 2005 to 1.5 billion by 2020 and three
billion by 2050 (half of the current total world population),
the urbanization of poverty poses a major challenge to national
governments and the international community. Whilst UN-HABITAT,
Cities Alliance and the World Bank are addressing these issues,
there is a need for diversity in the approaches adopted to meet
diverse situations.
A primary consideration within DFID in assessing
its effectiveness appears to be the degree to which administrative
costs are reduced as a proportion of the total aid budget. Whilst
the intention that the maximum proportion of funds should benefit
those for whom it is intended is honourable, this approach assumes
that the key constraint to progress is money, rather than expertise.
This is, however, often not the case and relatively small budget
projects (often with high administrative costs) have yielded positive
value-for-money poverty reduction results. Furthermore, there
has been a shift towards allocating funding directly to governments
based on Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSP). Whilst this may
seem good in principle, it is uncertain how effective or accountable
this approach is in terms of actually reducing poverty. Poverty
Reduction Strategies largely fail to adequately address urbanization
or urban poverty issues.
Urban development and management is essentially
a subject requiring expertise rather than massive funding. In
fact, it is because urbanization is such a wealth creating process
that it is happening so rapidly. The challenge is to manage the
process in ways which enable all sections of the population to
benefit, not just well placed minorities. 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, exacerbating the fact that urban related
issues have never been a very high priority.
DFID once provided ample opportunities for young
professionals to work in this area, yet it now seems intent on
reducing still further the very capability that earned DFID its
high reputation in the past. As David Satterthwaite stated, DFID
would do well to establish a professional cadre both from British
and local sources in countries where DFID is active, as a means
of increasing the ability to manage urban development in ways
which address social, economic and environmental needs. Larry
English similarly suggested that each DFID country office should
have an urban expert. At present, there is a resurgence of interest
among young professionals who want to contribute by building careers
in development. DFID would do well to tap into this commitment.
As stated in the session, the constraints to
progress in urban development are ultimately about governance
and political will, rather than resources or know how. Information
on a wide range of innovative policy instruments is available
in the public domain. What is needed is a coalition of international,
national and local stakeholders to build on what works locally,
introducing approaches from other contexts on a selective basis.
Again, building support for such approaches requires expertise
predominantly, rather than large-scale funding. Indeed in April
2001 DFID produced an excellent urban strategy "Meeting
the Challenge of Poverty In Urban Areas". A review and
updating of this document would be a good step forward in building
up an urban expertise base.
It needs to be recognized that cities in both
developed and developing regions are major contributors to greenhouse
gas emissions. Investing in urban management is therefore a key
consideration in addressing climate change, not a distraction
from it. Again, this is where expertise is required more than
money.
Rather than allocating a substantial proportion
of the aid budget through other donors, such as the UN, World
Bank and EU, we urge the committee to recommend that DFID maintain
and increase its independent contribution to development. We further
urge the committee to recommend that DFID re-evaluates its approach
to funding; develops and maintains urban expertise and gives higher
priority to urban issues. A Shelter, Land, and Urban Management
(SLUM) Assistance Act has just been put forward in the US House
of Representatives. The bill aims to make addressing the challenges
of slums a higher priority in US foreign aid programmes. DFID
would do well to follow a similar step.
| 
