4 OPTs: DFID's programme
DFID's
funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA)
64. One of the key aspects of DFID's Palestinian
programme is the provision of funding to the Palestinian Authority,
through the World Bank's Palestinian Reform Development Plan (PRDP)
Trust Fund. Between 2011 and 2015, DFID is providing £129.5m
to the PA in this way. This funding is governed by a Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) between the UK and the PA, covering principles
of human rights, poverty reduction, accountability and financial
management. The PA uses UK money specifically to pay the salaries
of its civil servants.[ 76]
In its written evidence, DFID states that:
UK funds are transferred on a quarterly basis
in GBP to the World Bank Palestinian Reform and Development Plan
(PRDP) Trust Fund, which in turn converts these funds to USD and
transfers these USD funds to the PA Bank of Palestine general
pooled account. The Ministry of Finance converts the USD funds
received, at prevailing exchange rates, to New Israeli Shekels
and transfers them to the general PA Bank of Palestine Shekel
account. A Shekel amount equivalent to the UK contribution is
then paid into an account at the Arab Bank used specifically for
the payment of civil servants. The Statebuilding Grant contributes
to the salaries of the civil servants on the EU PEGASE list, of
which there are around 85,000.
This process is verified through an audit which
takes place once every six months. The audit firm was selected
through a fair competition between a number of shortlisted companies
deemed by the World Bank to be competent auditors. […] The
audit reports show the ministries that receive contributions and
confirm that the Ministry of Finance (MoF) complies in all material
respects with the provisions of the MoU. The list of eligible
beneficiaries is checked at two stages: once by the MoF's internal
controller and again by the external auditor in order to ensure
that funds are used in accordance with the process set out in
the MoU. […] All quarterly payments to the PA are approved
at Ministerial level.[ 77]
65. The PA is currently grappling with a major financial
crisis. In recent times it has been forced to delay salary payments,
or the payment of invoices to private firms, due to lack of funds.[ 78]
There have been some concerns around possible misuse of funds
by the PA. In its written evidence, the Britain Israel Communications
& Research Centre (BICOM) states:
The Palestinian Authority Ministry for Prisoner's
Affairs provides salaries to all Palestinian prisoners held in
Israeli jails, regardless of their faction. The longer the sentence,
the higher the salary on a scale of 1400NIS (£250)/month
(sentence up to 3 years) to over 12,000NIS (£2100)/month
(sentence of 30 years). For comparison, the average salary for
a PA civil servant in 2011 was 2882NIS (£500)/month.[ 79]
A number of our witnesses commented on these payments.
Daniel Levy, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme
at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said:
one cannot de-Palestinianise what the Palestinian
Authority does... The idea that you could have, at this stage
in the conflict, a Palestinian Authority that does not treat its
prisoners in a certain way, I do not think can exist with the
reality we are in. If you asked the Northern Ireland warring parties
to disavow the people of violence at the wrong moment in that
process, one would have undermined that process... We de-Palestinianise
the PA at our own peril, because the less credibility and legitimacy
we impose on it vis-a-vis its own public, the less useful it is,
to be honest, for the main purpose it is designed for, which is
to be a vehicle for making a peace deal.[ 80]
John Ging, Director of the Coordination Response
Division at the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA) said:
I would suggest that the prisoners who are in
prison are paying the price of their crime; their families should
not be paying a price for the sins of their parents. If it is
a poverty-alleviation programme, then, it should be on the basis
of the need of the children and whoever else are the dependents
or in need, irrespective of the crimes of their parents.[ 81]
The Minister of State said: "we will continue
to say to the Palestinian Authority that this would be so much
better and would be less of a problem for them if it were based
on an affordable needs-based welfare process, rather than anything
that could be taken as an apparent reward for going into prison."[ 82]
66. However, in his evidence Daniel Levy argued that
if the UK wishes to see a two-state solution, it should continue
funding the PA.[ 83] He
described the provision of funding to the PA since its foundation
"not as 20 years of failure but as 20 years of keeping an
option [of a two-state solution] alive."[ 84]
Tony Laurance, CEO of Medical Aid for Palestinians, said that
DFID's funding to the PA "secures ongoing stability, and
ongoing stability in the region is not to be looked at lightly."[ 85]
In a recent report, the UN argued that the PA was ready for statehood:[ 86]
this implies that donor funding of the PA has been successful.
67. DFID's support is helping to prepare the PA
for the assumption of governmental functions in a future Palestinian
state. DFID's financial support is critical to the PA's operation,
especially giving its ongoing financial crisis. UK policy
remains to support a two-state solution and DFID should continue
to provide funding to the Palestinian Authority.
68. We are nevertheless concerned that DFID is
not taking adequate measures to prevent its funds from being misused.
Given the scale of the operation, with 85,000 civil servants being
paid with UK money, there is a serious risk of abuse. We do not
regard a six-monthly audit as an adequate protection to secure
the integrity of UK aid funds. We recommend that DFID impose
more stringent checks to ensure that the money it provides to
the PA is not being misused while pursuing a constructive dialogue
with the PA on the end-use of funds.
69. We are also extremely concerned about the
PA's policy of paying salaries to the families of Palestinian
prisoners in Israeli jails. While appreciating it is a sensitive
issue, issuing payments to families based on the length of jail
terms, rather than need, is a political and not a welfare decision
and thus unacceptable. In addition, while the British Government
maintains that no UK money supports this activity, UK aid payments
fund the payment of PA civil servants. It could therefore be said
with some justification that this payment of UK funds enables
the PA to release alternative funds which allow these payments
to continue and which might alternatively be used more effectively
to cover other needs. The Palestinian Finance Minister confirmed
that the payments were a serious burden on the PA's finances.
We urge the UK to help the Palestinian Authority stop these
payments and to replace them with welfare payments to prisoners'
families based on poverty levels and need.
DFID's funding to the UN Relief
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
70. Another key plank of DFID's programme is the
provision of funding to UNRWA (£106.5 million between 2012
and 2015) to support its work on health, education, social protection,
and the protection of refugees' rights. In addition, DFID has
provided £14.5 million to UNRWA to support the construction
of 12 schools in Gaza, plus a further £14.5 million to support
UNRWA's Job Creation Programme, which provides cash for work to
refugees in Gaza.[ 87]
In a recent report, ICAI found that:
DFID is able to achieve a significant impact
on the lives of Palestine refugees through its support to UNRWA.
The impact of UNRWA services on the human development of the refugee
population is achieved consistently, despite the political, security
and other service delivery challenges UNRWA faces.[ 88]
71. UNRWA plays a crucial role in public service
provision in the OPTs: without UNRWA, the PA would not have the
capacity required to deliver necessary public services. In his
evidence Tony Laurance, CEO of Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP),
said: "it is impossible to imagine how you can maintain stability
with such a large proportion of refugees without UNRWA's continuing
efforts […] I think DFID is an intelligent and effective
donor that works well with them to improve their performance and
results […] In Gaza, in particular, [UNRWA's] role is vital."[ 89]
Yossi Mekelberg, Lecturer in International Relations and Politics
at Regent's University, London, said: "What DFID is doing
is excellent, and the fact that it is accountable and transparent,
and especially their collaboration with UNRWA, which has so much
expertise and experience in dealing with the conditions on the
ground, is extremely important."[ 90]
72. There have been criticisms of UNWRA s efficiency
and ability to achieve value for money. During our visit we were
assured that there had been considerable improvements.
73. UNRWA is a key provider of public services
in the Palestinian territories, and it is only able to fulfil
this role thanks to the contributions made by donors such as DFID.
Donor funding to UNRWA plays a crucial role in preventing great
hardship in the OPTs. We recommend that DFID continue to
provide funding to UNRWA. While there are weaknesses in UNWRA
s work, it has made improvements, but DFID must maintain pressure
on the organisation to make further efficiencies.
Health
74. The health system in the OPTs faces great challenges.
Tony Laurance, CEO of Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), told
us that:
supplies have been impeded, partly, earlier on,
by political disagreements, but now, in more recent years, by
the fiscal crisis of the PA, so there are shortages both in the
West Bank and in Gaza. […] people are being referred out
of Gaza for very expensive cancer treatments, for example, not
for want of specialists and so forth but for want of the necessary
drugs to maintain the treatment regime.[ 91]
In its written evidence, MAP particularly highlights
the situation in Gaza: 30% of essential drugs and 50% of disposables
are out of stock.[ 92]
75. The health sector has not been a strategic priority
for DFID's Palestinian programme since 2008. Lindy Cameron, DFID's
Director for the Middle East, Conflict and Humanitarian, said:
One of the reasons for not deciding to fund that
in the last period was that we did not think we have a comparative
advantage and there was a large number of other donors active
in the sector. Those factors would need to change for us to seriously
reconsider entering it.[ 93]
Tony Laurance accepted that at the time of DFID's
original decision, other donors had been active in the field,
but went on to argue that: "the Italians withdrew from the
health sector at one point; so has the EU. There is no European
country, as far as I am aware, now playing a major part in this
area."[ 94]
76. In its written evidence, MAP argues that DFID
should support the Palestinian Ministry of Health in rebalancing
the Palestinian health system to give greater priority to primary
prevention and disease control. MAP also argues that the international
community, including DFID, should step in to provide supplies-as
it did for both Gaza and the West Bank in 2006.[ 95]
77. The health sector in Gaza is in a situation
of grave crisis. Failure to address this crisis as a matter of
urgency will have severe consequences. Together with other
donors, DFID should provide funding for urgent medical supplies
in Gaza. DFID should also reinstate the health sector as a key
priority within its Palestinian programme, as it is clear that
the circumstances which led to its de-prioritisation no longer
apply.
People-to-people projects
78. In her evidence to us Margot Ellis, Deputy Commissioner-General
of UNRWA, said:
you have a dying generation of Palestinian businessmen
in Gaza who still believe in a two-state solution. Why do I say
it is a dying generation? It is because Palestinians and Israelis
do not know each other anymore... Every Israeli around the table
had some type of personal connection with a Palestinian, but I
cannot say that today, because Palestinians only know Israelis
as soldiers, and Israelis only know Palestinians as terrorists
or, in the past, as suicide bombers. That personal connection
is no longer there. There is a ticking time bomb for the potential
for a two-state solution, because the people-to-people connection
is not there.[ 96]
79. Many argue that there should be greater focus
on "people-to-people" projects which aim to bring Palestinians
into contact with their Israeli peers. Givat Haviva argues that
such projects work to "break down the barriers between the
groups by re-humanizing the other, fostering empathy and mutual
understanding, building trust, and creating relationships."[ 97]
Given that both Israeli and Palestinian administrations intend
to put any peace settlement to a referendum, it argues, there
is an urgent need to shift public opinion in favour of an agreement.
People-to-people programmes can play a crucial role in this by
convincing each group that the other side is "on board".[ 98]
80. During our visit to Bethlehem it was suggested
to us that Arab Christian organisations might have a particularly
useful role to play in bringing people of all faiths together.
We subsequently received a memorandum on behalf of Musalaha and
Hope Christian Trust UK which informed us of several activities
including 'a core programme focusing on individuals from differing
and often opposing religious backgrounds with a view to them returning
back as positive change agents, community activists and voices
of reconciliation'. DFID support was sort for the 'appointment
of a short term ( 2 years) joint Development Officer who would
focus on ensuring financial sustainability and income generation
for both organisations over the long term' at a cost of less than
£29,000 per year.
81. An example of successful people-to-people engagement
is the "Youth Creating Peace" programme, run by an organisation
called Kids Creating Peace. Prior to the project, only 5% of participants
had ever met a peer from the "other side." The vast
majority of participants reported a significant change in their
views about the conflict during the course of the project. Prior
to the project, 60% of the Israeli participants were indifferent
towards the position of Palestinians and the idea of peace; afterwards,
over 95% of Israeli participants were committed to peace and keen
to engage their home communities to that effect.[ 99]
82. At present, UK support for projects of this nature
is extremely limited. DFID does not currently fund any such projects,
though it states in its written evidence that it would consider
doing so. The Conflict Pool (a joint DFID-FCO-MOD mechanism working
on stabilisation, peacekeeping and conflict prevention) funds
a small number of programmes implemented jointly by Palestinian
and Israeli organisations. In its written evidence, DFID argues
that whilst bringing Palestinians and Israelis together may not
be an explicit objective of these programmes, it is an inevitable
consequence.[ 100]
83. Some are sceptical about the potential of such
programmes. In his evidence to us, Daniel Levy said:
There have been 20 years of attempts to put together
what were called people-to-people programmes. In the 1994 agreement,
you had a clause, and there was even a state given leadership
in shepherding this-Norway-in supporting people-to-people programmes.
[...] I do not think those programmes have particularly proven
themselves, which does not means that there are not individual
programmes... that do fantastic work... Regarding the very interaction
and who you can bring from the Palestinian side into an engagement
on people-to-people programmes-whether because of security clearance
or permits or language access-my fear is that we will end up bringing
elites together... My tendency is to think that that is better
left to philanthropic foundations and other funders for those
kind of projects, rather than to development assistance.[ 101]
Lindy Cameron, DFID's Director for the Middle East,
Humanitarian and Conflict, said:
There was quite a lot of donor experience of
this kind of work back in the 1990s but quite a lot of disillusionment
about the impact it produced at scale. Particularly in a situation
where communities are living in a more separate way than they
have been before in previous generations, we would need to assess
the impact of those projects to make sure that they were worth
the funding.[ 102]
84. However, according to USAID, those participating
in people-to-people programmes report higher levels of trust,
higher levels of co-operation, more "conflict resolution
values", and less aggression and loneliness.[ 103]
85. If a two-state solution is to be achieved,
it will require genuine support and buy-in from ordinary people
on both sides. This cannot and should not be taken for granted.
On the contrary, concrete steps should be taken to strengthen
the appetite for peace on both sides of the divide. We recommend
that the UK fund a significant number of people-to-people projects
in Israel and the OPTs, either through DFID, the Conflict Pool
or the new Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. As part of this,
it should fund organisations, which can bring together people
of all faiths. We met a number of individuals from organisations
which appeared well equipped to do this, including Cherish, the
Bethlehem Bible College and other Palestinian Christian organisations,
which we met at the college.
The future
86. The PA is dependent on donor funding.[ 104]
Some have suggested that the PA would collapse were it not for
donor funding,[ 105]
leaving Israel-as the occupying power-responsible for governmental
functions in the OPTs.[ 106]
We asked the Minister of State whether by funding the PA, donors
were effectively subsidising Israel's occupation of the OPTs.
His response was as follows:
I understand that logic but do not share it […]
We are not paying Israel for the occupation. […] If the situation
collapses, there may still be need for us. We were talking about
stability in Lebanon and Jordan earlier; it may be more pressing
in the Palestinian Territories. Whether we change our stated objective
or the way we approach it is unclear at this stage.[ 107]
87. The progress on peace talks has been frustrating
and difficult, but failure to reach an agreement eventually would
have devastating consequences on both Israelis and Palestinians.
In view of this, we believe that it is essential that the UK continues
to support the talks, keep hopes of peace and the two state solution
alive and to provide funding to support the Palestinians, especially
in view of the UK's role in the history of the area.
76 DFID, written evidence Back
77 DFID, written evidence Back
78 DFID, written evidence Back
79 BICOM, written evidence Back
80 Q33 Back
81 Q30 Back
82 Q167 Back
83 Q43 Back
84 Q29 Back
85 Q88 Back
86 http://www.unsco.org/Documents/Special/UNs%20Report%20to%20the%20AHLC%2013_April_2011.pdf
Back
87 DFID, written evidence Back
88 ICAI, The Effectiveness of DFID's Engagement with UNRWA, para
3.1 Back
89 Q88 Back
90 Q88 Back
91 Q94 Back
92 MAP, written evidence Back
93 Q199 Back
94 Q93 Back
95 MAP, written evidence Back
96 Q32 Back
97 Givat Haviva, written evidence Back
98 Givat Haviva, written evidence Back
99 Kids Creating Peace, written evidence Back
100 DFID, written evidence Back
101 Q57 Back
102 Q206 Back
103 Alliance for Middle East Peace, written evidence Back
104 DFID, written evidence Back
105 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/world/middleeast/collapse-of-peace-talks-leaves-israel-in-precarious-position.html?_r=1
Back
106 IV Geneva Convention Back
107 Q163 Back
|
