Slide 1 Changing lives, delivering results: the Government’s International Development Priorities...

Changing lives, delivering results: the Government’s International Development Priorities

Presentation to the International Consulting Economists’ Association on 11 May 2011Mark Lowcock, Acting Permanent Secretary, DFID

Overview of reviews and outcomes

Summary of multilateral review

Summary of bilateral review

Summary of humanitarian and emergency assistance reviewQuestions

The challenge we are all facing in the UK

•Coalition Government committed to deliver 0.7%

•‘Ring-fenced’ aid budget•Spending review commitment to focus 30% of ODA into fragile or conflict affected states

The aim of the reviews

Secretary of State instigated a ‘root and branch review’ of all UK aid spending across our Bilateral and Multilateral programmes

Aim to establish a new approach to development that ensures UK development spending:

•has the greatest possible impact for those we are trying to help•is transparent•meets our duty to deliver maximum value for money for UK taxpayers

Through these reviews we will make UK aid work better by:

1. Focusing on results and impact2. Tackling poverty in unstable and conflict–affected

countries3. Investing in girls and women 4. Harnessing the private sector5. Focusing in fewer countries where we can have the

greatest impact6. Being transparent and accountable7. Using innovative approaches8. Working with fewer international organisations 9. Tackling climate change

The areas we will focus on:

• Wealth creation: helping people prosper for themselves

• Poverty and Vulnerability: through tackling hunger, malnutrition and helping people break out of the cycle of poverty


• Education: harnessing the transformative power of education

• Health: saving lives and preventing illness by focusing in areas like: maternal health, vaccinations, HIV, malaria, TB and polio


• Providing access to clean water and sanitation

• Helping to make countries safer, fairer and free from conflict, through work on security, governance and conflict prevention

• Working with other UK government departments to combat climate change

We have put a focus on women and girls at the very heart of what we do

• Improve women’s role in decision making and politics

• Improve women’s access to financial services

• Strengthen women’s property rights• Generate more jobs and income

generating activities for women

The outcome of these reviews will enable us to change more lives and deliver greater results for the worlds poorest. For example we will:

• Secure schooling for 11 million children• Help immunise more than 55 million children

against preventable diseases • Provide 50 million people with the means to help

work their way out of poverty • Stop 10 million more children going hungry• And hold freer and fairer election in 13 countries

UK MULTILATERAL AID REVIEW

UK Multilateral Aid Review

Ensuring maximum value for money from DFID’s contributions through multilateral organisations

1 Palace Street, London SW1E 5HEAbercrombie House, Eaglesham Road, East Kilbride, Glasgow G75 8EA

1. Purpose Purpose

• To ensure that the UK gets maximum value for money from our contributions to multilaterals – In 2009/10 DFID spent £2.4Bn (37%)of its programme budget via multilateral organisations

• Sits alongside the Bilateral Aid Review and the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review

• Makes recommendations for how DFID should engage with the multilaterals in future to increase value for money, including through funding decisions

• Covers the 43 multilateral organisations or funds which received over £1m in core funding from DFID in 2009/10 and EBRD and IFC

DFID context:

UK Fiscal Year 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

(0.7 = 2013)

2014/15

Budget

£ billions

6.6 7.1 8.7 9.5 12.3 12.4

Of which Multilateral 2.4

Of which bilateral through multilateral

1.3

• Multilateral Aid Review

• Bilateral Aid Review

• Humanitarian Emergency Response Review

Framework

• Criticality to international and UK aid objectives• Attention to fragile contexts, gender and

environment/climate change considerations• Focus on poor countries• Contribution to results

• Cost and value consciousness• Partnership behaviour• Strategic/performance management• Financial resources management• Transparency and accountability

• Capacity for positive change

Contribution to UK

Development Objectives

Organisational Strengths

Key Challenges from UK Ministers

Results and Ambition• Theory v practical delivery/difference on the ground

• Criticality – all or some of the time ?

• Ambition and stretch

Cost Control and Concern for Low Cost/High Impact• Concern for admin costs, evidence that cost base under control

• Evidence that are driving low cost/high impact innovations through development

Sources of evidence

• Multilateral organisations’ own results reporting, strategy documents and evidence submitted to the Review

• Surveys• Data from other assessments • Evidence submitted by UK civil society• Evidence of multilateral performance gathered through 10

country visits• Discussions with developing country governments

Quality Assurance

•Internal

•External

• Multiple Quality Assurance and challenge processes by peers and Top Management – and from other UK Government Departments

• Alison Evans, Director of the Overseas Development Institute, and Lawrence Haddad, Director of the Institute for Development Studies and President of the Development Studies Association of the UK and Ireland

UNICEFContribution to UK Development Objectives

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0Criticality to international objectives

Criticality to UK aid objectives

Focus on poor countries

Fragile contextsGender equality

Climate change/ environment

Contribution to Results

Contribution to UK Development Objectives- component scores compared with MAR average

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Criticality tointernationalobjectives

Criticality toUK aid

objectives

Focus onpoor

countries

Fragilecontexts

Genderequality

Climatechange/

environment

Contributionto Results

UNICEF MAR average

UNICEFOrganisational Strengths

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0Cost and value consciousness

Partnership behaviour

Strategic/ performancemanagement

Financial resourcesmanagement

Transparency and accountability

Organisational Strengths - component scores compared with MAR average

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cost and valueconsciousness

Partnershipbehaviour

Strategic/performancemanagement


Transparency andaccountability

UNICEF MAR average

WHOContribution to UK Development Objectives

0

1

2

3

4

Criticality tointernational objectives

Criticality to UK aidobjectives

Focus on poorcountries

Fragile contextsGender equality

Climate change/environment

Contribution to results

Contribution to UK Development Objectives- component scores compared with MAR average

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Criticality tointernational

aid objectives

Criticality toUK aid

objectives

Focus onpoor

countries

Fragilecontexts

Genderequality

Climatechange/

environment

Contributionto results

WHO MAR average

WHOOrganisational Strengths

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0Cost and value consciousness

Partnership behaviour

Strategic/ performance managementFinancial resources management

Transparency and accountability

Organisational Strengths - component scores compared with MAR average

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cost and valueconsciousness

Partnership behaviour Strategic/ performancemanagement


Transparency andaccountability

WHO MAR average

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF DIFFERENT MULTILATERAL GROUPINGS

Strengths (>= 3) Weaknesses (< 2.5)

MDBs and DFIs

Critical role, strategic/performance management, financial resource management and transparency

Gender, fragile contexts and focus on poor countries

Global funds inc. climate

Focus on poor countries, critical role, climate and cost consciousness

Gender and fragile contexts

Europe Critical role, partnership behaviour, financial resource management

Strategic/performance management and gender

UN exc. Humanitarian

Partnership behaviour, critical role and gender

Delivery, cost consciousness, strategic/performance managemt, transparency, and financial res. managemt

Humanitarian

Fragile contexts, critical role and focus on poor countries

Strategic/performance management, transparency and cost consciousness

Contribution to UK development objectives rankingIC

RC

EC

HO

CE

RF

GA

VI

UN

ICE

FID

AO

CH

AU

NH

CR

PID

GA

sDF

ED

FIF

RC

WF

PU

NIT

AID

GFA

TMF

TIIF

AD

PB

FU

ND

PA

fDF

CIF

sG

FDR

RU

NF

PA

EF

WIF

CW

HO

GE

FO

HC

HR

UN

AID

SU

NE

P

FA

O

IAD

BIO

MIL

OU

NIF

EM

CD

BH

AB

ITA

TU

NE

SC

OU

NID

OC

omm

Sec

EB

RD

E C

'ion

Bud

get

ISD

R

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

Ba

lan

ce o

f str

en

gth

s a

nd

we

akn

ess

es

Organisational strengths rankingE

BR

DG

AV

IP

IDG

AsD

FA

fDF

ED

FG

FATM

ICR

CIF

CC

IFs

EC

HO

GE

FG

FDR

RIA

DB

IDA

CD

B

FTI

IFA

DP

BF

UN

DP

UN

HC

RU

NIC

EF

WF

PC

ER

FE

FW

OH

CH

RU

NA

IDS

UN

FP

AU

NID

OU

NIF

EM

UN

ITA

IDIF

RC

IOM

OC

HA

UN

EP

WH

OF

AO

ILO

HA

BIT

AT

ISD

RU

NE

SC

OC

omm

Sec

E C

'ion

Bud

get

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Ba

lan

ce o

f str

en

gth

s a

nd

we

akn

ess

es

Findings Focus on Poor Countries:

Multilateral organisations Spend Profile According to Geographic Fit Score

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f S

pe

nd

Top 5% Most need Effective countries Next 5% Most need Effective countries Rest of 1st Quartile2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th quartileAll of 1st quartile

Mos Ranked according to Geographic Fit Score

Presenting the results

ILO

UNIDO

FAO

UNHABITATUNESCO

UNIFEM

ISDR

ComSec

IoM

EFWUNAIDSOHCHR UNFPA

EC Budget

WHO

IADB

CDB

UNEP

AfDBIFC

PBFUNDP

GFDRR

IFRC

UNITAID

EBRD

UNHCR

GEF

CERF

OCHA

CIFs

FTIWFP

IFAD

EDF

AsDB

GAVIPIDG

ICRC

ECHOIDA

GFATM

UNICEF

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Contribution to UK Development Objectives

Org

anis

atio

nal

Str

eng

ths

REFORM PRIORITIES

– Accountability for results– Delivery of efficiency savings and value for

money in programming– Human resource management– Transparency and accountability– Delivering for girls and women – Working in fragile contexts– Partnership behaviour

VALUE FOR MONEY FOR UK AID

Very good Good Adequate Poor

AsDF

ECHO

EDF

GAVI

GFATM

ICRC

IDA

PIDG

UNICEF

IFAD

CERF

CIFs

EBRD

FTI

GEF

GFDRR

IFAD

IFC

IFRC

OCHA

PBF

UNDP

UNHCR

UNITAID

WFP

CDB

EC Budget

EFW

IADB

OHCHR

UNAIDS

UNEP

UNFPA

WHO

CommSec

FAO

HABITAT

ILO

IOM

ISDR

UNESCO

UNIDO

UNIFEM

EXAMPLES OF FINANCING DECISIONS

Stop funding/exit UNIDO, ILO, UNISDR, UN Habitat

Special Measures

Urgent performance improvement and review

FAO, UNESCO, CommSec and IOM

Adequate and Good Generally conservative Approach to Funding

Eg WHO, UNFPA, UNAIDs, FTI

Very Good UNICEF have doubled

GAVI for replenishment

GFATM to announce soon

Summary of Bilateral Aid Review

Country offers: Results, Market for Ideas, Theory of Change

Peer Review&Scrutiny Panel: Innovation, Gender and VFM

Ministerial drill downs: build on analysis & aggregation, offers likely to be taken up

Allocation Process: top down constraints; BAR/MAR and Pillar trade offs; Challenge funds

Operational plan: translating concept notes into a credible, resourced operational promise

Footprint: need, effectiveness, DoL

The bilateral aid review process:

Partner Consultation: In country consultation, NGO meetings, Written submissions

Uptake of results offers by strategic priorityMinisters Take up

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Wea

lthC

reat

ion

Gov

erna

nce

and

Sec

urity

MD

G: H

ealth

MD

G:

Edu

catio

n

MD

G:

Pov

erty

,V

ulne

rabi

lity,

Hun

ger

MD

G:

Wat

eran

dS

anita

tion

MD

G:

Hum

anita

rian

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Spe

nd in

£m

Uptake by strategic priority

Delivering MDGs

Wealth Creation

Governance&Security

Climate Change

Our revised bilateral programme:

We will refocus the UK aid programme in fewer countries so that we can target our support where it will make the biggest difference and where the need is greatest.

Between now and 2016 UK bilateral programmes in the following countries will come to an end:

Angola, Bosnia, Burundi, Cameroon, Cambodia, China, Gambia, Indonesia, Iraq, Kosovo, Lesotho, Moldova, Niger, Russia, Serbia and Vietnam.

Our revised bilateral programme:

This smaller country focus will allow us to concentrate our resources and impact in 27 countries:

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The model• The proposed footprint was compared against a need-

effectiveness index used by the MAR. HDI * CIFP-FFS * Population living under $2 a day0.2 * CPIA

• This helped to identify where aid is likely to have the biggest possible impact on poverty reduction.

• Countries’ allocations were determined– by a bottom-up aggregation of the results that could be achieved,

following a number of layers of scrutiny and a thematic analysis–by the policy driven model based on need and effectiveness

DFID historic bilateral allocation v the BARSpend Profile of DFID's Bilateral Country ODA based on MAR 'need-effectiveness' model

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004-09 2011-15 (BAR)

As %

of

To

tal C

ou

ntr

y-B

ase

d B

ila

tera

l O

DA

4th quartile

3rd Quartile

2nd Quartile

Rest of 1st Quartile

Next 5% Most need Effectivecountries

Top 5% Most need Effectivecountries

1st Quartile

Summary of Humanitarian and Emergency Response Review

Purpose

“We will instigate a full review of Britain’s emergency response process, and press hard for improvement internationally.” SoS to DEC AGM, 14/07/10

Humanitarian Emergency Response Review

• Help DFID to build on its strengths in responding to humanitarian emergencies

• Draw out key lessons learned from previous responses and inform UK efforts to improve the wider UN led international responses

• Cover sudden-onset disasters, including spikes in chronic emergencies

• Report published on March 28th, a detailed response from SoS is scheduled in House of Commons on May 23rd

Process

• Review led by Lord Ashdown, with a Senior Advisory Board of 15 and secretariat

• Country visits to Niger, Pakistan and DRC plus 5 desk studies

• Meetings held in New York, Rome, Geneva and Brussels

• Consultations in DFID, cross Whitehall and externally including UN Agencies, Red Cross, ECHO, WHO, CBHA, NGOs, Search and Rescue, faith groups and the UK public

• Submissions from stakeholders, subject experts and other interested parties

Seven themesidentified by the review

• Anticipation • Resilience• Leadership• Innovation• Accountability• Partnership• Humanitarian

space

Ensure that building resilience is part of the core DFID programme in at risk countries, integrating the threat from climate change and other potential hazards into disaster risk reduction

DFID should incorporate resilience into its development policy and programmes

Key recommendations

Reassert the premise that humanitarian action should be based on need, reaffirming the key principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality

More

• Copies of all materials available on the DFID website: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2011/The-future-of-UK-aid/

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Get-Involved/Disasters-and-emergencies/Humanitarian-Emergency-Response-Review/

• Some individual Country Operational Plans already available on the DFID website – all others to follow over next 2 months

Thank you for listening: any questions?

Slide 1 Changing lives, delivering results: the Government’s International Development Priorities...

Documents

Transcript of Slide 1 Changing lives, delivering results: the Government’s International Development Priorities...