Written evidence submitted by Bond
1. DFID'S
APPROACH TO
ASSESSING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF
AID AND
THE ROLE
OF DFID'S
NEW AID
WATCHDOG
1.1 From the perspective of assessing the effectiveness
of aid delivered through UK NGOs, it is as yet unclear how the
Coalition Government will examine this in practice. However, from
the public statements and speeches made by Government Ministers
since the election it is clear that the focus on results and effectiveness
will be greatly increased in pursuit of providing the UK taxpayer
with the best value for money, particularly in these straitened
times.
1.2 Bond welcomes the Coalition Government's
increased focus on the effectiveness of aid and, as signatories
of the Paris Declaration and subsequent participants in the Accra
Agenda for Action process, the Government's recognition of its
obligations on effectiveness initiatives. Many civil society organisations
(CSOs) are already reporting robustly on their work and both the
sector and DFID need to draw on the experience of those who are
doing this well to improve overall performance; indeed, Bond is
leading an Effectiveness Programme to look at these very issues
for NGOs. We would welcome a joint approach between DFID and CSOs
to progress the effectiveness agenda and identify measurement
methods that can capture some of the longer term and more complex
outcomes of development work, as well as its wider impact.
1.3 We also welcome the opportunity to highlight
some concerns regarding the way effectiveness is interpreted and
implemented. As well as some areas where obvious outcomes can
be measured, international development also involves complex,
long-term processes that are not always measurable or straightforward
to analyse, or to establish attribution or direct cause and effect.
In the desire to demonstrate greater development impact it seems
that DFID will look to increasingly fund NGO work that focuses
on "measurable deliverables". This may provide immediate
results in the short term. However, it could also mean less impact
on the longer term, more complex processes of social, economic
and political change that are known to affect poverty.
1.4 For example, the Civil Society Challenge
Fund was originally established to fund UK NGOs partnering with
Southern CSOs with the aim of building the capacity and expertise
of Southern CSOs and their ability to engage in advocacy and decision-making
processes at local and national level. The proposed new Poverty
Impact Fund, however, takes a very different approach - it does
not stipulate that applicants must partner with local organisations
in the South; it focuses on delivering services, particularly
in support of achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
rather than on tackling the social structures that prevent the
poorest in society from accessing these services, even when they
are available; and it does not promote more complex, longer-term
goals around governance, holding to account, capacity building
and rights. Thus, it takes a short-sighted view of the needs of
poor people and does not incorporate an understanding of the broader
systemic and political causes of poverty and marginalisation.
1.5 While supporting the MDGs and working to
deliver quality services to those living in poverty are welcome
and necessary initiatives, they should not be at the expense of
longer-term, process-driven work that focuses on these systemic
and political issues and which may take longer to deliver impact
and change and may be inherently harder to measure in a quantitative
fashion but which are nonetheless essential to ensure sustainable
change for poor people. A focus on deliverables alone risks diminishing
the support available to projects and programmes which enable
poor and marginalised people to understand their rights and engage
with the political system to realise them; this kind of work is
crucial in ensuring equal access to education, employment, health,
social protection and other services. The fact that the greatest
impact of this kind of work may not be visible immediately should
indicate that it provides greater value for money over the longer
term, rather than being dismissed for not showing instant, tangible
results.
1.6 Bond welcomes the Coalition Government's
desire to undertake an appraisal of both the UK's multilateral
and bilateral aid commitments and their subsequent effectiveness
and the opportunity for UK civil society to feed into these. Bond
has already fed into the DFID Multilateral Aid Review highlighting
three areas that we believe should be the main basis for assessing
multilaterals: the views of recipient countries; poverty reduction
results; and democratic accountability and transparency. We also
suggest that, when examining the evidence base for the review,
particular attention is paid to views from recipient countries,
and to independent assessments. To reiterate, both Bond and the
wider NGO sector fully support an enhanced focus on aid effectiveness;
this can only be a good thing for the developing world and we
are glad to see the Coalition Government taking a leading role
in pushing this agenda. However the process of aid scrutiny itself
must also be effective and rigorous. Bond is concerned by the
short consultation period and comparative lack of clarity on how
multilateral aid will be assessed and how evidence will be used.
We await the outcome of the Multilateral Aid Review with interest
and will respond to the findings in time. We continue to work
with the Government on the consultation on the Bilateral Aid Review.
1.7 Regarding the new aid watchdog, it is as
yet unclear what the process will be for establishing this new
entity. Although Bond supports efforts to increase transparency
and effectiveness in aid, ensuring greater value for money for
the UK taxpayer and increased accountability to aid beneficiaries
in the South, the methods to achieve these must take into account
existing mechanisms to hold DFID to account on its spending and
performance, such as the National Audit Office, Public Accounts
Committee and the International Development Committee itself.
1.8 It is essential that the new aid watchdog
works together with these existing bodies to ensure the greatest
efficiency and effectiveness in monitoring DFID performance and
spending on aid. Perhaps a distinguishing feature of the new aid
watchdog could be its inclusion of a balanced representation of
development actors, including input from the South, development
practitioners, academics, NGOs, faith groups and civil society
as well as the private sector and individuals from public life?
We ask particularly that individuals who are involved in the watchdog
and have decision-making powers are drawn from those with a robust
understanding of the complexities of international development
work.
1.9 Bond welcomes the commitments made by the
Secretary of State for international development to make information
on all DFID programmes readily available online and elsewhere.
We would also welcome evidence that DFID were conforming to the
strict standards of transparency they expect from their aid programmes
and grant recipients in the establishment of this new aid watchdog.
Specifically, we would welcome transparency in decision-making
processes on the set up and staffing of the watchdog, as well
as consultation with a range of actors, including UK and Southern
civil society, on the constitution, remit and make up of the watchdog.
2. REDUCTION
IN DFID'S
ADMINISTRATION COSTS
2.1 With DFID's budget rising to meet the 2013
target of 0.7%, it is vital that DFID staffing levels rise commensurately
in order to manage this increased budget and programming responsibility.
However, it appears that DFID staff are subject to the same efficiency
saving targets as other UK Government departments and Bond would
like to raise concerns about the impact that reduced staff numbers
managing a rising budget is having on DFID's ability to manage
its programmes and relationships successfully. Delivering high
quality, effective, efficient and accountable development work
that delivers value for money for the UK taxpayer requires experienced
and expert staff in sufficient numbers and Bond is concerned that
continuing pressure on DFID to reduce its administration costs
and headcount is detrimental to working effectively.
2.2 Bond refers the IDC to the UK Aid Network's
submission to this inquiry for more detailed evidence on this
matter.
2.3 See point 3 below for information on the
impact of reducing administration costs regarding DFID's grant-making
practices.
3. DFID'S USE
OF TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND
CONSULTANTS AND
WHETHER REDUCING
THIS EXPENSE
COULD BE
AN APPROPRIATE
TARGET FOR
THE NEW
GOVERNMENT
3.1 The use of technical assistance and consultants
in the programme delivery context, particularly as a cost-saving
measure, is of concern to Bond and relates to the need to consider
value for money in a broader sense.
3.2 Ongoing civil service reforms have focused
on lowering the headcount in all government departments, leading
DFID to employ consultants as fund managers for various funds
targeting UK civil society organisations and NGOs[20].
This trend means that learning and valuable experience in grant
management is held outside of DFID and is effectively lost to
the institution. As one of the purposes of DFID's funding of NGOs
is to support the development of new approaches that can be documented,
learned from and scaled up into larger DFID programmes, this loss
of learning is critical. It also impacts on DFID's ability to
consolidate learning about the practices of good grant-making
to NGOs and interrupts the process of continuous learning and
improvement and impinges on grant recipients' ability to link
their funding relationship with DFID with policy and programme
dialogue.
3.3 Good grant-making requires staff with the
relevant expertise and experience, as well as access to policy,
evaluation and programme staff input. Bond believes DFID's own
staff are often best placed to manage funds for NGOs, ensure that
grant recipients are effective development actors whose programmes
represent value for money for the UK taxpayer and that recipients
are able to conform to rigorous standards of transparency and
accountability. Although Bond would welcome a transparent assessment
of the comparative financial costs of employing consultancy firms
on a £ for £ basis, Bond would also welcome more focus
on the non-financial costs associated with using consultants for
grant management, in terms of the loss of learning and links with
other parts of DFID, as well as the increasing difficulty in maintaining
strong dialogue in the grant-making relationship.
20 The Civil Society Challenge Fund and the Additional
Support to Civil Society Fund are currently managed by Triple
Line. The Governance and Transparency Fund is managed by KPMG
with support from Triple Line. Back
| 
