7 Key messages for our successors
51. With a General Election approaching, this
Report provides an opportunity for us to set out issues which
we regard as meriting the particular attention of our successors
on the International Development Committee in the next Parliament.
Women Members of the Committee
52. We cannot emphasise enough the negative impact
on our work of the House failing to appoint women members to our
Committee. Gender equality is one of the Millennium Development
Goals and DFID quite rightly gives a high priority to encouraging
developing countries to address inequalities which affect women's
rights, including rights to health, education and equal representation
in society. It is difficult for us to put this message across
convincingly when organisations we meet both here and abroad have
a better gender balance than we do. It is also a real impediment
to us carrying out our work effectively during visits. Many situations
arise where cultural factors prevent women having contact with
men who are not family members. As we cannot have direct discussions
with these women, we are unable to benefit from hearing about
their experiences and their views. We call on all parties to put
forward the necessary nominations to ensure that there are at
least two women members of this Committee throughout the next
Parliament.
Trade and development
53. As we said in our Report on Aid Under
Pressure, an international agreement on trade which worked
in the interests of developing countries has the potential to
generate three and half times as much revenue for them as they
receive in aid.[26] Throughout
this Parliament we have pressed for the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) Doha round of negotiations (the "development"
round) to be successfully concluded.[27]
DFID's latest White Paper says that it will "make growth
and trade a central part of our support to developing countries"
and that it will "press for a quick conclusion to the Doha
trade talks."[28]
Developing countries have been waiting since 2001 for a trade
agreement which responds to their needs and works in their best
interests. We would encourage our successors to continue to focus
on the importance of trade to development.
Middle-income countries
54. As we said in our Report on the DFID Annual
Report 2008, while we support DFID's policy of spending 90% of
its bilateral funding in low-income countries and only 10% in
middle-income countries (MICs), the latter countries are critical
to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
DFID used to have a Middle-Income Country Strategy but this expired
in 2008 and has so far not been replaced. In our Report on DFID
and China, we reiterated our view that DFID should publish
a coherent strategy for its policy and expenditure for MICs as
a matter of urgency.[29]
DFID's Response to the points made in both these Reports was exactly
the same: "each [middle-income country] is different and
it is not clear that a single strategy can any longer adequately
reflect the specific agendas we have with each of them".
It said that it would review this issue as part of its work on
the White Paper.[30]
However, no new approach to middle-income countries is set out
in the White Paper. We will not have time to conduct an inquiry
into this topic but see it as a priority for the next Parliament,
given its importance to the MDGs being achieved.
The Committee's engagement with
DFID
55. We have sought throughout this Parliament
to be a "critical friend" to DFID. We are supportive
of its work and have frequently praised the professionalism and
dedication of its staff. We firmly believe that there is no substitute
for visiting developing countries to see DFID's programmes in
operation and to talk to the beneficiaries of UK funding. A mix
of country-specific inquiries and those based on sectoral themes,
for example, sanitation and water and maternal health, have provided
a good balance and allowed us to cover our remit effectively.
56. The influence of the Committee on DFID's
policies is often subtle yet powerful and is not reflected solely
in the Government's responses to our specific recommendations.
Simply beginning an inquiry into a subject raises its profile
with Ministers and increases officials' focus on it. This was
demonstrated by our prioritising of sanitation over water in our
2007 Report.[31] When
DFID launched a new Water and Sanitation Policy in October 2008,
it paid tribute to the Committee for the role our Report had played
in formulating the policy, which included additional funds for
improving sanitation in Africa and Asia.[32]
Similarly, as we mentioned above, our work on global food
security brought new attention within DFID to the importance of
nutrition. The publication of DFID's nutrition strategy has been
long delayed but we hope that our successors will have an opportunity
to comment on it early in the new Parliament.
57. Our 2007
inquiry into DFID's assistance for Burmese refugees and displaced
people demonstrated how policy can be influenced in the course
of an inquiry as well as by the eventual report. Just as we began
taking evidence, DFID announced a change of policy in relation
to cross-border assistance which entailed removing the restriction
on the use of its funds for assistance to refugees on the Thai-Burma
border. One of the key recommendations in our Report was that
DFID should quadruple its overall aid budget to Burma by 2013.
While the Government Response acknowledged that overall aid levels
to Burma should increase, no specific commitment was given.[33]
However, in a press release issued later in the same month, DFID
announced that aid to Burma would be doubled from £9 million
to £18 million by 2010.[34]
While welcoming this change, we said at the time that we regarded
it as rather dismissive on the part of the Government that no
mention was made in the announcement of our contribution to the
debate about aid to Burma and our specific recommendation on funding.
We reiterate our view that parliamentary processes would be strengthened,
and the Government's own standing enhanced, if due acknowledgement
was given to select committees for their contribution to policy-making
when it may be appropriate.[35]
58. The challenges for DFID of operating with
a rising budget but a reducing staff headcount has been a recurrent
theme for us during this Parliament and will continue to need
careful monitoring as the UK moves closer to its commitment to
spend 0.7% of gross national income on development by 2013. We
have also pointed out that this is one of the motivating factors
behind DFID's intention to channel increasing sums of money through
multilateral bodies such as the World Bank and UN agencies, which
was restated in the White Paper. Although this can often increase
the coherence of aid delivery, it also presents challenges in
terms of ensuring that the objectives of multilateral bodies match
those of the UK and in tracking the impact of UK aid expenditure.
The performance of multilaterals and the effectiveness of DFID's
collaboration with them will continue to be important themes in
the next Parliament.
59. The other main policy shift in the White
Paper was the increased focus on fragile states. This has implications
for both of the issues mentioned above: staff reductions and working
through multilaterals. It will also require effective joint working
between a number of Government Departments, particularly FCO,
MoD and DFID. Afghanistan is a fragile state which has presented
particular challenges. We hope that some lessons can be drawn
from DFID's joint work with other Departments there which can
be applied generally. However, as the Permanent Secretary told
us, each fragile state is "unhappy is its own way" and
DFID will have to take care to tailor its programmes to the particular
context.[36] We will
comment further on this in our forthcoming Report on the DFID
Annual Report and White Paper 2009, but would urge our successors
to monitor this emerging policy focus very carefully.
26 Fourth Report of Session 2008-09, Aid Under Pressure:
Support for Development in a Global Economic Downturn, HC
179-I, para 112 Back
27
See for example Third Report of Session 2005-06, The WTO Hong
Kong Ministerial and the Doha Development Agenda, HC 730-I;
Fifth Report of Session 2006-07, EU Development and Trade Policy:
An Update, HC 271; and Second Report of Session 2007-08, Development
and Trade: Cross-Departmental Working, HC 68 Back
28
DFID, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future,
Cm 7656. 6 July 2009, p 28 Back
29
Second Report of Session 2008-09, DFID Annual Report 2008,
HC 220-I, paras 82-88 and Third Report of Session 2008-09, DFID
and China, HC 180-I, paras 112-113 Back
30
Second Special Report of Session 2008-09, HC 440, p 9 and Third
Special Report of Session 2008-09, HC 535, p 8 Back
31
Sixth Report of Session 2006-07, Sanitation and Water,
HC 126-I Back
32
DFID, Water: An increasingly precious resource; Sanitation:
A matter of dignity, October 2008 Back
33
Eleventh Special Report of Session 2006-07, DFID Assistance
to Burmese IDPs and Refugees on the Thai-Burma Border: Responses
to the Committee's Tenth Report of Session 2006-07, HC 1070,
pp 2-3 Back
34
"UK will double aid to fight poverty in Burma", DFID
Press Release, 30 October 2007 Back
35
See Third Report of Session 2007-08, Work of the Committee
in 2007, HC 255, paras 19-23 Back
36
Evidence taken on 24 November 2009 in the inquiry into the DFID
Annual Report 2009, Q 12 Back
| 
