Department for International Development priorities questioned
30 Apr 2014 03:20 PM
MPs on the International
Development Committee say field work overseas should be given greater
priority and Ministers must explain UK spending on humanitarian projects more
clearly
Launching its annual review of
UK aid programmes and the administration of the Department for International
Development (DFID), Sir Malcolm Bruce, Chair of the Committee said
today:
“DFID staff should spend
less time in their offices and more time out in the field building local
knowledge and monitoring whether UK aid money is being used
effectively.
We are also worried that
the Department actually spends 40% of its budget in the last two months of the
year, which raises questions about the smooth running of management and
planning processes.
DFID must set out annually its
provisional budget for humanitarian relief, what is held for contingencies for
unpredictable events and how it will be deployed if not called
upon.
We also call on the UK
Government to press other countries to increase their spending on humanitarian
crises as well as development. The UK has met the target of spending 0.7% of
national income on aid; others should do the same.
UK spending on humanitarian
assistance has risen substantially due partly to a very large increase in the
aid budget for 2012-13. This will not, however, be repeated in future years as
DFID’s budget will be linked to GDP. It will simply not be possible for
DFID to continue taking the lead in future; other countries must do
more.
DFID must not provide funds to
support disasters in middle–income countries by raiding bilateral
development programmes in low income countries. Rather, we argue for the
percentage of income spent in low income countries to rise over time provided
they are capable of absorbing it and of using aid
effectively.”
In their Report the Committee
also notes how—despite a small decline in 2012-13—the largest
element (£1,075m) of DFID’s bilateral expenditure is money spent
via multilateral organisations and private contractors. While MPs accept that
DFID has put in place a number of changes to improve value for money provided
by such organisations, the Committee also calls on DFID to monitor and report
to them whether these changes have proved effective.
Linked to this the Committee
cautions that DFID staff should have longer postings overseas (normally a
minimum of four years) so that they can develop a deeper understanding of the
culture and politics of the country they are working in and engage more
effectively with the country’s politicians.
Committee
Chair
Commenting on this
Sir Malcolm Bruce added:
“In evidence to our
inquiry various contractors were critical of DFID’s programme management.
We welcome changes DFID has put in place, but recommend going forward that
policy advisers spend more time in the field and work more closely with
programme managers in these partner organisations.
Moreover, while DFID has low
administrative costs compared to other development organisations we do not
regard this as a virtue if it arises from failure to do the job properly rather
than from genuine efficiency savings. DFID must reassure itself and Parliament
that it is not simply sub-contracting work which would be better done
in-house.”