Written evidence submitted by CARE International UK

 

Please find below brief responses from CARE on the issues being consulted for the Inquiry into DFID's assistance to Zimbabwe.

 

It seems that CARE missed out on the original communications for the consultation, and we only became aware of it through a phone call from Keith Neary at the International Development Committee on 12th January. Therefore we missed the original deadline.

 

We were asked to contribute anyway, and by Tuesday 19th January, which we have hereby done. The response from CARE is primarily from a country office perspective,

and is based on a 20 minute telephone call to the CARE Zimbabwe Country Director-more time could not be given due to this coinciding with very heavy work schedules, and so the answers are not in great depth but was all we could do under the time available.

 

· how DFID works with other donors, multilateral agencies and NGOs to deliver assistance;

 

CARE's engagement with DFID in Zimbabwe is primarily through the PRP II. Since February 2009, GRM has become the managing agent for DFID's PRP and for this reason, CARE does not have much direct contact with DFID. This has resulted in CARE having reduced knowledge of DFID's work more generally, with few opportunities to engage directly with them other than the occasional working group or cluster meeting. CARE would appreciated having greater opportunity for direct engagement on broader issues with DFID. CARE is aware that DFID is very involved in the multi-agency working groups and clusters but is unclear as to the extent of this, now being more isolated from these initiatives due to the GRM management of the PRP. CARE assumes that other INGOs, particularly those benefiting from PRP are in a similar position of now having less knowledge of DFID's strategic programming.

 

Equally CARE UK's engagement with DFID is through GRM in Zimbabwe for project management of PRP, and since an NGO partner meeting in DFID London in February 2009 to discuss the cholera response, there have been no further meetings despite chasing for a further opportunity.

 

· DFID' s contribution to the provision of humanitarian aid;

 

CARE does not receive humanitarian aid per se from DFID-although the PRP II funds are technically protracted relief, they are not regarded as emergency response assistance. During the 2009 cholera crisis, DFID channelled additional funding through the WASH cluster and UNICEF, and thus CARE is not aware of how much of any funding received from UNICEF was directed on from DFID. With UNICEF as the conduit, it is hard to assess the scale and impact of DFID's contribution.

 

Again, CARE assumes that this is the same situation from other INGOs.

 

· the effectiveness of DFID' s support for delivery of basic services;

 

CARE appreciates the flexibility that DFID provides in being able to respond to the needs of the more vulnerable communities through the PRP II. Again there is minimal contact directly with DFID to be able to get a sense of the effectiveness of basic service delivery beyond own our PRP. However the PRP is providing a platform to respond to the basic needs of people in Masvingo and Midlands Provinces, with provision of some services such as food distribution, HIV/AIDS support, agricultural capacity building (inputs and training), livelihoods capacity building (savings and loans group development).

 

DFID is known to do some work focusing on communities but details are not known

 

· the impact of DFID's funding for health and HIV, and its support for orphans and vulnerable children;

 

As above

 

· strategies for rural development;

 

As above

 

· prospects for a closer development relation ship between DFID and the Government of Zimbabwe;

 

While the Unity Government is remaining stable to a certain extent, donor confidence increases and discussions do happen about longer term engagement with Government. However this needs to be cautious due to the fragility of the situation. DFID should also consider the differing priorities as GoZ does not want to have handouts (food, farm inputs, cash) and yet this is essential to the short term. Therefore DFID must proceed with caution with exploring opportunities of partnership and engagement with Government strategy, while still focusing on what is really needed on the ground.

 

It is also thought that even if it was feasible to start channelling bi-lateral funds directly through GoZ, the implementation of activities and service delivery will still rely on the donors and INGOs/NNGOs as Government technical capacity and staff levels have been eroded.

 

· Zimbabwe's relations with its regional neighbours and their impact on

economic recovery and development.

 

Not able to comment