Mumsnet at the UN: some answers to your questions from the lovely folk at DFID

[RowanMumsnet]

Following on from Mumsnet's exciting induction as a full plenary member of the UN Security Council (NB this is not strictly true), we passed on some of the questions and concerns that had been raised by posters on this thread to the policy wonks at DFID, and they've been kind enough to come back with some detailed answers. Let us know what you think!

QUESTION: Can you give us some more details about the results-focused model, and examples of how this might work in practice?

ANSWER: Results-based approaches tie disbursements to the achieved results. They empower the recipient to decide how results will be achieved, relying on incentives to ensure they are. There are different types of results focused approaches depending on: the type of results: whether we want to encourage specific outputs or longer term outcomes; type of incentive: whether we want to increase incentives to service providers or to poor people to access services, or both; and finally depending who we work with: private sector, NGOs, communities, central or decentralised government agencies.

For example, a results-based financing scheme in Rwanda has been shown to have improved the quality of prenatal care as well as resulting in an increase in the number of mothers giving birth in health facilities and preventative care visits by young children.

The Gavi Immunisation Service Support provides a reward payment of $20 per child vaccinated above an agreed baseline. An evaluation estimates that nearly 2.4 million children were immunised with diphtheria-tetanus-pertusis who would not have been immunised had Gavi spending been zero.

QUESTION: A criticism commonly made by NGOs is that this model penalises the poorest countries and regions, which will find it most difficult to make progress; could explain how you plan to guard against this?

ANSWER: The results focused model is just one of a range of aid models. It would only be used if it was appropriate in the particular country context and if the partner country expressed an interest.

QUESTION: There are also concerns that results-focused aid might lead to less emphasis on hard-to-measure processes like governance and empowerment; again, can you say how to expect to address this?

ANSWER: Results focused approaches are not suitable for every type of development result; they work better for measurable outcomes. They are used together with other aid instruments.

QUESTION: Furthermore, is there a contradiction between the Coalition's dislike of targets in domestic politics (such as the NHS) and its embrace of targets in the international context? Are targets OK for poor countries, but not OK for the UK?

ANSWER: Results focused approaches reward achievement of results, and they are aimed at creating an incentive for partner countries to focus more on development outcomes. They do not set targets.

QUESTION: Can you say anything about DFID's involvement in the DRC? I understand that DFID does a lot with physical reconstruction in the country, but it would be great if you could explain the measures that are being undertaken to strengthen civil society. More generally, is there a conflict between the taxpayer's wish to see aid money spent on tangible improvements (schools, roads, sewers) and the deeper imperative to work towards less tangible aims, like a free media, open and transparent government budgeting, the eradication of corruption, effective parliaments, and a solid independent judiciary?

ANSWER: The DRC is one of the toughest development challenges in Africa. Although things have improved in recent years, the country is still plagued by conflict and corruption.
DFID?s programme in DRC aims to protect people from the worst effects of the continuing conflict, particularly in the east of the country where we continue to provide humanitarian support to several million people, and are doing everything we can to empower women and girls and protect them from abuse.
Elsewhere we are helping poor people to rebuild their lives through community development programmes, and major improvements to water and sanitation and health services. We are also making a large contribution to rebuilding DRC?s road network, which has almost entirely collapsed. We have already seen massive improvements in areas where roads have been rebuilt ? in economic activity and people?s access to basic services.
As well as helping rebuild people?s lives, we are also working to support reforms that will build a more accountable and democratic state in the DRC and reduce corruption. This includes supporting upcoming national elections, helping reform the police service, and improving public financial management. We are also working with civil society and the media to strengthen the voice of the public in national policy debates and to hold the government more directly to account. This is all very challenging work, but it is clear that if DRC is to move forward we as donors must not only seek to bring improvements to people?s lives but must also help them change the world around them.
Further details about DFID?s programme in DRC can be found here.

QUESTION: Could you say something about how DFID works in Rwanda, and especially address the growing perception that President Kagame is becoming autocratic? What steps is DFID taking to strengthen civil society in Rwanda, and would it countenance withdrawing some aid funding if further evidence emerges of Kagame's involvement in violence and corruption (or making such aid payments conditional on evidence that democratic processes are being strengthened)?

ANSWER: The Rwandan government uses development finance well, both in terms of the results they achieve and accountability for its use. Achievements include a 30% reduction in infant mortality in just over two years - from 86 per 1,000 live births in 2005 to 62 per 1,000 births in 2007/8 - and 400,000 additional children enrolling in primary schools between 2003 and 2006. Because of this, a large part of DFID?s programme is through direct support to the government budget ? with a considerable focus on the health and education sectors. DFID also funds a number of projects aimed directly at placing work, money, credit and land ownership directly in the hands of the poorest Rwandans. And we are becoming more active in support of the private sector and civil society.

DFID Rwanda provides direct support to Rwandan civil society organisations engaged in election observation and monitoring of government services. We also encourage and give practical guidance on providing more space for Rwandan civil society to engage in policy dialogue with government. Planned shifts in DFID Rwanda?s programme will further strengthen accountability by the government of Rwanda to its citizens, and an enhanced role for civil society in ensuring our budget support has even greater impact on poverty reduction.

DFID centrally supports a strong local presence of international NGOs in Rwanda ? which includes Save the Children, Care, VSO, Oxfam, Plan, HelpAge International and CAFOD.

Corruption is judged by Transparency International and other independent organisations to be less of a problem in Rwanda than in most African countries. But this year has seen a number of events that have demonstrated that the Rwandan government continues to exert tight controls on political rights and freedom of expression. The UK regularly raises concerns on these issues with the Rwandan government, and will continue to do so in the coming years.

QUESTION: A verbatim question from one of the posters on the board:

'[quote from leaked document] "The national security council has said the ODA [official development assistance] budget should make the maximum possible contribution to national security consistent with ODA rules. Although the NSC will not in most cases direct DfID spend in country, we need to be able to make the case for how our work contributes to national security."

(The "in most cases" is particularly sinister.)

It was true under Labour, I think, that govt recognised an unconditional moral obligation to support developing countries, and this is negated when aid has security strings attached. Naturally states have to act in a self-interested way for the most part but there is surely scope for the really rich western countries to reserve one area for disinterested giving.

The impact will be felt particularly in Pakistan and Afghanisan. The latter is ironic because one of the ex post facto rationalisations for invasion was improving the lot of women. Now the order of rationalisation is reversed: we don't make war to help women, we help women to assist the conduct of war.'

(On a related point: I know the Coalition is committed to DFID's continuation as an independent department, but there's a perception that it will become part of a broader Foreign Office/MoD offensive in conflict countries (kind of like a soft 'hearts and minds' propoganda instrument); is this correct?)

ANSWER: As with all leaks, this is only a partial picture of an ongoing process of reviewing the entire aid budget. We have consistently made clear that every single penny of aid provided by the UK is subject to the strict definition of aid provided by the OECD. This means that it can only be spent on encouraging the economic development and welfare of developing countries.

Poverty relief will remain central to everything that DFID does. But the countries most struggling to come to terms with poverty are precisely those where conflict and insecurity are most prevalent - no single country mired in conflict has achieved a single Millennium Development Goal. Unless the international community takes a lead in tackling these intractable problems, we cannot hope to achieve a better deal for the world's poorest people.

On your second point, while working in conflict countries DFID will be improving the way it works with the FCO and the MoD because this is the best way to make sure aid gets through to those who really need it.

QUESTION: Another verbatim question:

'I would be fascinated to know how the Pakistan floods are influencing the discussions or whether they are just not on the agenda. Floods on this scale set back human development and wipe off MDG progress pretty effectively. This year has seen unprecedented heatwaves (e.g. Russia), floods, and the first time two Cat 4 hurricanes have ever been recorded similtaneously in the Atlantic. While science cannot formally attribute these events to climate change, the pattern we are seeing in disasters matches what the IPCC predicted in the 2007 fourth assessment report. So coming years will see more significant development set backs through direct impact of climate-related disasters, but also the indirect impacts on food prices for example (Mozambique riots this year). Therefore, I'd like to hear how the Summit's decision-makers plan to disaster-proof MDG attainment, especially when modelling future disaster severity and frequency in line with IPCC predictions.'

ANSWER: You?re right that we can?t directly relate events like the Pakistan floods to man-made climate change but they are a reminder of just how damaging extreme climate events can be. What we do know is that it?s the world?s poorest who are hit hardest by the effects of climate change ? whether that?s floods and droughts, falling crop yields or increasingly severe natural disasters. In fact, the UN estimates that a person living in a developing country is 79 times more likely to be hit by a climate disaster than someone from a developed country. So it?s clear that climate change poses a very serious threat to tackling global poverty and attaining the MDGs.

Decision-makers in New York for the Summit were discussing this and the declaration from the Summit specifically references that addressing climate change will be vital in safeguarding progress towards the MDGs. It also recognises that disaster risk reduction can have multiplier effects and actually accelerate achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. But what?s important, is that countries ? both developed and developing nations ? now take action to make this a reality.

The UK is very strongly committed to helping developing countries tackle climate change. We?re already funding disaster risk reduction programmes ? for example in Bangladesh, we?ve helped to protect 900,000 people from the impacts of climate change and in Ghana, we are supporting ActionAid to invest in schools and help ensure that buildings and surrounding areas are safer from potential climate impacts.

QUESTION: Can you say anything about the aspects of MDG 7 that touch on informal settlements, and particularly the perception that the original target was too easy? Does DFID have a policy on the granting of legal title to people who live in informal settlements, or is this something that's addressed on a country-by-country basis?

ANSWER: DFID has produced policy documents on land reform and we have worked with country partners on these issues (land reform, access to land, land rights) but we do not have a blanket policy for land policy for all contexts. We have pursued a country-based approach.

Property rights are extremely important in providing a legal and regulatory environment that supports investment decisions, by individuals, governments, private sector etc. If rights to land and property are clear and secure this can help boost economic growth, tackle inequality and reduce poverty.

DFID recognises the importance of people's secure access to land and has worked in a number of countries (such as Bangladesh, Rwanda, Kenya) to help vulnerable groups to secure tenure to land and property, reducing their vulnerability to eviction and strengthening their confidence to invest in their livelihoods.

For further information, please see here

QUESTION: When funding things like midwifery training, how do you then encourage those undertaking it to stay in their country and provide the services they trained for?

ANSWER: DFID funds training for midwives, obstetricians and other health care workers through various channels. For example, we are currently supporting the UK's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to provide Life Saving Skills training in emergency obstetric care to midwives and doctors in five target countries. By March 2012, 1,400 additional national trainers will be available to improve maternal and newborn health services.

The issue you raise on international migration is however a reality in a globalised world. Individuals, be they midwives, teachers or engineers, are increasingly able to determine their own career paths and rightly so, whilst national governments can and do take steps to address the 'push' and 'pull' factors that influence career decisions.

In the particular case of health workers in our partner countries, DFID's approach is to encourage both training and retention, reducing the 'push' factors. For instance, we work to ensure that staff have the equipment, medicines and commodities to deliver services and if practising in a rural area are provided the appropriate support. This increases their ability to apply their new skills.

Simultaneously, we work with global partners to promote ethical practice in migration and international recruitment. The UK has had a code of practice on the recruitment of international health personnel for 6 years and earlier this year, we championed the adoption of a global code of practice prepared by the World Health Organisation. We sincerely hope that all WHO Member States will move forward with this global code and its principles.

And finally:

QUESTION: Is there a sense yet of what comes after 2015? More of the same? Or a completely new post-MDG development architecture? Or are people not talking about what comes next, for fear of losing momentum towards 2015? Do you think the MDGs are too rigid and externally-imposed? Would it be better to have goals that developing countries have developed themselves, as is the case in Brazil, Nepal, Vietnam, Paraguay? Would this be in conflict with the targets-based approach?

ANSWER: The most important thing is to keep the focus on the goals we've set ourselves, and to accelerate progress on those over the next five years. That has been the focus of the summit in New York this week. The UK has been clear about its commitments going forward to do everything we can to help achieve the 8 goals set in 2000. With 5 years to go and so much still to do it would profoundly wrong to walk away from the current framework just because progress has been uneven.

Of course we need to start the thinking on what might happen after 2015 - global frameworks such as the current MDGs are the culmination of many years of analysis, debate and consensus building. It will be important that we hold onto the elements of the current MDG framework that have helped to catalyse action. What comes next will need to be a framework that builds on what we have learned over the last decade, and sets a framework that is relevant to the world we now find ourselves in as we enter the second decade of the millennium.

Clearly, the process of translating global frameworks into country contexts is an important one. A number of countries have done this creatively: Thailand, for example, has set itself an 'MDG Plus' agenda that builds on the 8 goals but sets more ambitious targets to match the country's increasing wealth and capacity.

Wow. Too much wine had here this evening, but I will read this tomorrow.

Thanks, PW.

It is not the world's most readable thread, I'll admit. But I am quite impressed at the level of detail they gave!

I've a comment concerning the answer: "But the countries most struggling to come to terms with poverty are precisely those where conflict and insecurity are most prevalent - no single country mired in conflict has achieved a single Millennium Development Goal."

I have heard this defence of the alleged new security criteria for aid allocation several times now. It wrongly assumes that what is chiefly objectionable about 'securitisation' is an increased concentration of aid in areas of conflict.

But that isn't the objection. The objection is not that more money will go to areas of conflict -- god knows they need it. It is that there will be criteria other than the simple criteria of need governing distribution of resources in those areas of conflict.

Naturally the money will still go on OECD-defined objectives. But a choice will be made between projects on military/security grounds -- which might mean that greater welfare needs are sacrificed to lesser. There is the horrible spectre of "hearts and minds" propaganda at the cost of a balanced aid expenditure.

Also, of course, what is meant by focussing on 'areas of conflict'? Presumably 'areas of conflict' means 'only those areas of conflict in which the UK has a security axe to grind'.

Too much waffly dfid speak for me - they have a great way of blinding you with words. Sorry but DfID don't always have all the answers, they just sound like they do. I have worked in the developing world and it's great to have a 300 page wordy document written by a consortium of highly paid consultants, but in reality a lot of it isn't working.

well they completely ducked the question on MDG 7 and slums. They utterly avoided the issue of slum conditions (housing, water, sanitation) and totally ignored the criticism of the target as being too weak and vague.

They "answered" solely in relation to land reform, land rights, and property rights - not unconnected with MDG 7 and slums, of course, but only part of the issue. And, tbh, there's something really rather mechanistic - almost unpleasantly pragmatic - as well as rather removed from the reality of living in a slum, about giving the linkage to investment such priority: firstly talking about property rights as something that enourages investment/economic growth and secondly linking security of tenure to individuals "investing in their own livelihoods." surely security of tenure - not being kicked out of your home on a whim - is, first and foremost, about basic justice and humanity. investment is great but surely, as a reason for affording people living in poverty the same legal protections as everyone else, it's secondary

tbh the answer to that question looks like it was put together by an intern or someone from the press department, well versed in the official line, rather than someone properly engaged in the issued. which it probably was.