House of Commons - Disability and development - International Development Committee

Disability and development - International Development Committee Contents

7 Influencing partners' commitment to disability

DFID's Partners

MULTILATERAL AGENCIES

86. DFID spends over 50% of its budget through multilateral agencies.[274] As a substantial donor, it is well placed to influence the agencies' policies on disability. The evidence we have gathered paints a mixed picture of multilateral agency performance. There have been some positive steps.For example, UNICEF, the WHO and the World Bank have done some leading work to collate and improve disability data.[275] The World Bank sponsors the Global Partnership on Disability and Development, which helps donors share knowledge and collaborate on disability.[276] However, several of our witnesses said multilaterals' performance was inconsistent.[277] Recent reports from Uganda and the Philippines suggest World Bank programmes have sometimes missed easy opportunities to include disabled people, such as building a ramp up to a water borehole.[278]

87. Our witnesses said DFID could play a "critical role"[279] in making multilateral agencies' development work more accessible to disabled people:

280

In addition, the World Bank—one of the multilateral agencies to which DFID contributes most[281]—is currently reviewing its development policies.[282] The Bank looks likely to introduce some new checks on disability—a very encouraging step: but it is unclear how far-reaching they will be.[283] This is therefore a good time for DFID to exert its influence.

88. DFID spends more than half of its budget through multilateral agencies. It should exert its substantial influence to ensure this budget is accessible to disabled people.We recommend that DFIDrequire its multilateral partnersto demonstrate that they are reaching disabled people, by reporting disaggregated data:the currentpolicy review at the World Bank provides one good opportunity to do this. When DFID conducts its 2015 Multilateral Aid Review, we recommend it include criteria on disability.DFID should also require its partners to show how disabled people—including DPOs and disabled parliamentarians—are participating in programming, from design through to evaluation.

89. As well as its influence on multilateral partners' own development programmes, DFID also has an influence on their wider work—including two areas with particularly profound effects for disabled people: Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, and trade policy.

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

90. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) set out a country's priorities for development, typically over a three year period. They are drafted by the country, with input from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other donors.[284]Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers have a material impact on the allocation of development funds[285]—yet anumber of submissions have raised concerns that PRSPs place little emphasis on the rights of disabled people.[286]We reviewed the most recent PRSPs for DFID focus countries, and found that, while most mentioned some plans for disabled people's access, few considered their rights across all sectors, and there was little evidence that access would be systematically monitored as it is for gender.[287]We recognise that the PRSP process is led by country governments. However, we would expect the World Bank to discuss with governments how they plan, through their PRSP, to meet their obligations under the UN Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. DFID should press the World Bank to do so. DPOs participate in PRSP process, and we recommend DFID help them to do this, for example by providing economics training, by sharing relevant research on disability and poverty, or by advising on effective monitoring techniques to ensure that any PRSP commitments on disability are duly translated into practice.

EU Trade Policies

91. STOPAIDS' submission to the inquiry drew attention to two proposed new EU trade agreements that could set back progress on access to low-cost Anti-Retroviral Therapy(ART) for HIV/AIDS.[288]HIV/AIDS is closely associated with conditions that cause disability.The virus can lead to a range of disabling conditions, and so can the side-effects of treatment.[289] HIV/AIDS can also lead to mental illness.[290] Furthermore, the average age of people with HIV/AIDS is increasing, which heightens the risk of disability, since older people have weaker immune systems, and are more prone to other illnesses that can compound the effects of HIV/AIDS.[291]This makes the provision of affordable Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) all the more urgent. We recommend that, in any forthcoming trade negotiations, the UK press the EU to retain existing flexibilities that facilitate the production of affordable generic ART.

PARTNER GOVERNMENTS

92. DFID delivers a substantial portion of its bilateral assistance through direct budget support[292] to partner governments: this amounted to around 10% of its bilateral aid in 2012-13.[293] Most[294] DFID partner governments have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, implementation is slow, for example:

· Submissions from DPOs in developing countries reported their governments had problems implementing commitments on employment quotas; literacy; and healthcare.[295]

· Experts in mental health from developing countries highlighted the persistence of laws that deprive people of their rights to vote, and even potentially of their freedom, if they have mental health problems.[296]

This puts DFID in a difficult position: on the one hand, it needs assurance that its funding is reaching disabled people and that governments are respecting their rights. But on the other hand, one of the main principles of budget support is that donors should not impose their priorities on recipient countries.[297]

93. We explored this dilemma with our witnesses. One commented that—in light of the slow progress that partners had made—this might be a special casefor "positive conditionality".[298] We put this to Lynne Featherstone MP, but she responded that conditionality was unlikely to achieve sustainable progress—this required genuine buy-in from the partner government; moreover, there was a risk that conditions could be perceived as creating a "master-servant relationship".[299]

94. On balance, we are persuaded by the Minister's arguments on sustainability and unequal relationships. Nonetheless, we think DFID should be engaging more actively with partner governments, to press for disabled people's rights. Currently, DFID's main approach is to support DPOs. DPOs are widely recognised as powerful advocates for disability rights[300]—but several sources emphasised that DFID had responsibilities too: as the Global Campaign for Education puts it,

301

95. The evidence suggested a range of approaches for DFID, and the rest of the UK Government, to take:

· There would be scope for greater dialogue with partner governments and ministries on disability rights issues. In particular DFID could offer capacity building support in key areas such as data collection and governance.[302] More specifically, some evidence highlighted that in many countries, the social protection ministry is responsible for disabled people's affairs: this an obstacle to implementing disability-inclusive policies across other portfolios such as education and health.[303] There might therefore be an opportunity for the UK to share its experience 'mainstreaming' disability across multiple ministries.[304]

· The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) leads the UK's work on human rights. It should make disabled people's rights a key message for travelling ministers, as it has done for gender and LGBT rights.[305]

· The UN has recently launched a fund to support countries in implementing the Convention—the UN Partnership to Promote the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[306] DFID is considering supporting the Partnership, but has not yet made a decision.[307]

96. Many DFID partner countries have been slow to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We agree with the Minister that it might be counter-productive to make aid conditional on implementing the Convention. However, we recommend the UK take other steps to press for disabled people's rights—for example, by supporting civil service capacity building, and by sending key messages with Foreign Office travelling ministers. DFID should also consider supporting the UN Partnership to Promote the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. If it decides not to support the Partnership, it should use the funds for other work to promote disabled people's rights, and should report back to the Committee on its plans.

PRIVATE SECTOR

Investing in the Private Sector

97. Under the Coalition Government, DFID has placed a new emphasis on building relationships with the private sector: one of the six goals of DFID's Business Plan is to boost wealth creation, including 'making DFID more private sector friendly.'[308] DFID's support for private sector companies includes:

· Ownership of CDC Group, which invests UK funds in private sector companies in developing countries[309]

· Funding for the Private Infrastructure Development Group (PIDG), which creates incentives for private companies to invest in infrastructure projects in developing countries (£68 million in 2012-13)[310]

· High Level Prosperity Partnerships with Tanzania, Ghana, Mozambique, Cote d'Ivoire and Angola. Under these partnerships, DFID will provide capital to local businesses, in sectors such as power and agriculture.[311]

DFID's engagement with the private sector creates exciting possibilities for itswork on disability. A recurrent theme in our evidence has been the importance of disabled people finding sustainable work and getting access to credit—submissions from disabled peopleacross the world, representing a variety of conditions, regularly mentioned this as a key concern.[312]We recommend that DFID require its private sector partners to report on the number of disabled people they employ, and - for services such as credit—the number of disabled people they serve. Reporting requirements should be proportionate—we accept DFID would not want to impose a heavy burden on very small companies. However it should, as a minimum, require such reporting from larger companies supported through CDC Group, the Private Infrastructure Development Group, and the High Level Prosperity Partnerships.

98. CDC Group and PIDG both set basic health and safety requirements for the companies in which they invest.[313] However, these do not require compliance with all relevant international standards set by the International Labour Organisation, World Bank and World Health Organisation.[314] Industrial accidents are a significant cause of disability.[315]We recommend DFID require all partner companies to produce action plans stating how they will work towards international health and safety standards.If DFID is working with very small businesses, it should provide financial support for any necessary adjustments to meet these recommendations.

HELPING REGULATE THE PRIVATE SECTOR

99. DFID also says that it expects private sector organisations will, in some countries, play an important role in the delivery of public services such as health and education.[316] DFID aims to help national governments regulate such organisations.[317]Wherever private sector organisations are responsible for delivery of key public services, we recommend that DFID work with partner governments to ensure appropriate regulations are in place for disabled people's access.

CREATING OTHER INCENTIVES FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR

100. During the inquiry we have explored a number of ways to encourage private sector organisations to take on disabled staff—for example, subsidising training,[318] or arranging short internships.[319] To complement these, we have also discussedthe possibility of a 'Kite Mark' recognition scheme similar to FairTrade. Under such a scheme, employers would have to show they met criteria on accessibility and equality; numbers of disabled employees; and health and safety.They would then be allowed to mark their products with a logo recognising their good employment practices, and this would potentially command a premium in UK markets.[320] Like FairTrade, the scheme would be run independently from DFID—but DFID could provide financial support, as it does to the FairTrade Labelling Organisation.[321] Given its contacts in countries such as Bangladesh,[322] DFID would also be well placed to undertake initial enquiries as to the scheme's feasibility. We recommend DFID investigate the feasibility of a Kite Mark standard to recognise disability-inclusive employers. It should report back its findings in its response to this report.

OTHER UK DEPARTMENTS

101. Around 13% of UK ODA[323] is delivered by other departments, foremost the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).[324]The FCO's recent work on human rights includes a number of positive steps to promote disabled people's rights, including lobbying in countries such as Mozambique and Ghana,[325] funding for disability NGOsinRussia, and support for disabled children's education in North Korea.[326] However,what the FCO lacks is a process to ensure disabled people are included in all its development and human rights work—for example, if the FCO is funding women's organisations,it should ensure these include disabled women.It is important that all UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) is accessible to disabled people, no matter which department is responsible. We recommendall departments that spend ODA put in place measures to monitor the number of disabled people who benefit from their development programmes. This is particularly important for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which spends most UK ODA outside DFID, and is the lead department on human rights issues.

Global development frameworks

102. The evidence to the inquiry was clear that the Millennium Development Goals had had a decisive influence on the last fifteen years' development agenda. The evidence recognised the Goals' enormous beneficial impact on extreme poverty, gender equality, child mortality, and communicable diseases.[327] But witnesses also said the Goals had had unintended, adverse, consequences for disabled people. There is no mention of disability either in the Goals or specific indicators; even the health indicators focus on mortality, rather than disability prevention.[328] The submissions argued this lack of attention meant disabled people had been left behind in development, to the extent that their "living conditions may actually be declining in relative terms".[329]The post-2015 development framework is currently being deliberated upon by UN General Assembly members. It is vital that this framework secure better outcomes for disabled people than the Millennium Development Goals.

103. The final framework will not be settled for over a year, but a key milestone was the publication, in May 2013, of the Report of the High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, which the Prime Minister co-authored (Box 6). The report contains two particularly important developments for disabled people:

· The principle that "no-one [should be] left behind":

disability

330

· The principle that results should be disaggregated by factors including disability, and no goal would be considered met unless it was met for all groups.[331]

Box 6 : Developing the Post-2015 Development Framework

Milestones so far:

May 2013: Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post 2015 Development Framework (co-authored by the UK Prime Minister)

September 2013: Report by the UN Secretary General (echoed findings of High Level Panel)

Next steps:

September 2014: 'Open Working Group' of General Assembly members will present recommendations on post-2015 framework

September 2014: Economic experts will publish report on financing the new framework

Late 2014: Secretary General will publish synthesis report, summarising preceding reports, to feed into final negotiations

September 2015: UN summit on post-2015 development framework

1 Jan 2016: New framework comes into effect

Source UN website (multiple pages, accessed 30 March 2014)

332

104. Amina Mohammed, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General on Post-2015 Development Planning, said there was an "amazing [...] consensus" around the principle of 'leave no-one behind',[333] and it is encouraging that recent international statementscontinue to refer to disabled people's rights.[334] However Ms Mohammedalso recognised there was a risk the consensus would be diluted as "the rubber hit the road" in the final stages of the negotiations.[335] Submissions to the inquiry have emphasised that, if the unintended consequences of the Millennium Development Goals are to be avoided, it is essential that the final framework maintains an explicit focus on disability, as opposed to a general statement on 'marginalised groups'.[336]

105. We strongly endorse the High-Level Panel's emphasis on leaving no-one behind in the next global development framework. We also welcome the proposal to disaggregate data by disability, and consider no goal met unless it is also met for disabled people.The Prime Minister has shown impressive leadership in bringing disability into the post-2015 developmentprocess,and we now urgethe UK to use all diplomatic channels to ensure this momentum is sustained until the goals are finally agreed.

106. The Post-2015 Development Framework, while crucial, is not the only international framework with a serious impact on disabled people. The Hyogo Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is also being revised for post-2015. Aleema Shivji, UK Director of Handicap International, told us that the initial drafts included specific references to disabled people's needs, but it was important to keep up the pressure.[337]We recommend that DFID press for the next framework on disaster risk reduction to include explicit references to disabled people, rather than simply vulnerable groups.

274 NAO, Briefing to Support the International Development Committee's Inquiry into the Department for International Development's Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13, p6 [multilateral aid + bilateral support delivered through multilateral organisations]. Multilateral agencies include the World Bank and other international financial institutions; the European Union; UN agencies; global funds such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Back

275 For example, the World Report on Disability(WHO/World Bank 2011), and State of the World's Children 2013: Children with Disabilities(UNICEF). See also World Bank Group (DIS0048) para 4. Back

276 World Bank Group (DIS0048) para 6 Back

277 Q44 [Mr McMullan], Q48 [Ms Shivji], Q52 [Mr Wainwright] Back

278 Ngirabakunzi and Malinga,The Impact of NUSAF II in the Lives of Persons with Disabilities in Northern Uganda, 2013; Life Haven, Inc. (DIS0007) and Benjamin S Bernandino (DIS0008) Back

279 Q44 [Mr McMullan] Back

280 Q44 [Ms Wapling] Back

281 NAO, Briefing to Support the International Development Committee's Inquiry into the Department for International Development's Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13, p 7 Back

282 Q54 [Mr Wainwright]. This review includes, among other elements, a review of the Bank's Safeguard policies, which aim to avoid unintended adverse consequences for at risk groups ('Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies', accessed 30 March 2014). Back

283 Q54 [Mr Wainwright] Back

284 International Monetary Fund, 'Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers', accessed 30 March 2014 Back

285 See for example, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Assistance Committee Guidelines on Poverty Reduction Paris, 2001, pp 13-14; World Bank, 'Country Assistance Strategies', accessed 30 March 2014; European Commission, Support to Sector Programmes, Brussels, 2007 pp 20-21. Back