WIREDGOV

• Full Report (1.28 MB)
• Executive Summary  (180 KB)
• Survey of country teams (56 KB)
• Individual staff survey results (49 KB)

The Department for International Development (DFID) has given priority to the needs of the poor in insecure countries. It has delivered benefits for them in difficult circumstances. But the higher risks run in insecure environments have led to lower project success rates. DFID could be better and faster at learning lessons, according to a National Audit Office report released today.

The damaging effects of insecurity have hindered progress in reducing poverty. DFID spends an increasing amount, now over £1 billion a year, on providing aid to insecure countries. But it has had limited experience of operating in such countries, and insufficient evidence on how best to adapt its approach to counter the risks posed by insecurity. There has been progress against some important indicators, such as those for health, but income poverty has not yet reduced in most insecure environments.

Guidance for staff needs to be adapted to reflect the challenges of working in an insecure environment. DFID teams in insecure countries assess the extent and nature of conflict, but it is less clear how far these assessments inform the design and management of programmes. In order to improve the effectiveness of aid operations, DFID needs to apply the lessons from practical experience more quickly; for example by better assessing and managing security risks and finding new ways to keep track of progress when site visits are dangerous.

Staff recognise the skills of senior managers in country teams in insecure environments, but there are still difficulties in building skilled and experienced teams. DFID’s management of security risks for its staff has been variable. Though the majority of staff feel satisfied with security arrangements, further steps could be taken in some locations to ensure staff feel adequately protected. Since the National Audit Office study began, DFID has conducted an internal review to help tighten its security arrangements.

Much of DFID’s work in insecure countries is delivered through partners such as host government agencies and international or voluntary organisations. But two thirds of the projects the NAO reviewed from insecure environments had problems arising from weak partner capacity. DFID has assessed partner capacity in specific cases, but has not looked systematically at potential partners in insecure countries to make maximum use of existing capacity. Working in insecure countries also makes the monitoring needed to assess performance and guard against corruption more difficult for the Department.
 

Tim Burr, head of the National Audit Office, said today:

"DFID staff work hard – often in difficult and dangerous situations – to deliver real benefits to some of the world’s most vulnerable people. DFID could still make better use of its teams’ growing experience in this field to adapt standard aid practices to meet the challenges presented by insecurity."
 

Notes for Editors:

1. Our definition of an insecure environment is based on an assessment of the safety of the general population and the personal safety of aid workers.
    
2. DFID have a presence in the following countries, which are classed as insecure: Afghanistan, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Liberia, Nepal, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
    
3. Press notices and reports are available from the date of publication on the NAO website, which is at www.nao.org.uk. Hard copies can be obtained from The Stationery Office on 0845 702 3474.
    
4. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Tim Burr, is the head of the National Audit Office which employs some 850 staff. He and the NAO are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies; and he has statutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies have used their resources.