Andrew Mitchell: UK Aid Funding to Focus on ‘Value for Money’

The U.K.’s foreign aid budget may be protected, but new leadership at the Department for International Development has nevertheless hit the ground running with some early reforms after taking office in May. A series of “development awareness” projects in Britain were scrapped, while bilateral aid to China and Russia, deemed progressive enough not to receive development assistance, was suspended. >> DFID Cancels New Funding for ‘Awareness’ Projects An outcry from non-governmental organizations greeted leaked plans to ax more than 100 development programs, which led to a crisis meeting with Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell. In an exclusive interview with Devex, Mitchell answers questions about the disputed reforms as well as the role NGOs play in the U.K.’s development arena, their relationship with government and how they can best secure DfID funding. Are there plans to make any changes or reforms to the procurement system and the way NGOs bid for DfID money? Yes, we are going to move to the Poverty Impact Fund, which is predicated on this basis: You come to DfID and you say, “Listen, if you double the money that I am spending on this particular development outcome, I will be able to double or more than double the development outcomes I can achieve.” And if we establish the probity of the accounting mechanism, if we can show that, by doubling the money, we would get more than double back in terms of development impact, that’s an incredible deal for the taxpayer in terms of development impact secured. And we will do that. And that will be the principle upon which the Poverty Impact Fund is based. >> UK Seeks Public Input for New NGO Fund Its name may change, but that will be established later this year with 40 million pounds (USD62.8 million) in the first year. But if it works successfully, and we can help enhance and boost the value of some of Britain’s most brilliant NGOs and charities, then we will scale it up quite rapidly. If a Devex member, say an NGO, was trying to put a bid in to DfID for more funding, what advice would you give them? An example would be an organization with a program working with tribal people and Dalits in India, particularly in the area of women’s empowerment. What would be the things you would want them to demonstrate? We’d be wanting them to ground the results they were achieving. So, in the example you give: How many people were they reaching? What were they achieving with them? What were the measurements that they were able to show for achieving those development results? We would then say to them, assuming they were eligible for funding: “If we increase your funding by X percent, will that increase the outcomes you are able to achieve by more than that percentage?” And if the answer to that is yes, then, with a very light regulatory approach, we would be seeking to “piggyback” on the back of their development expertise to deliver even greater value for money and results than they were already doing. That is incredibly good value for the taxpayer. It’s incredibly good for development and everyone wins – most especially the poor and disadvantaged people you describe. >> DfID Outlines Reforms to Encourage Private Sector-led Development There were some fears expressed by NGOs prior to the general election that while the 0.7 percent [of the nation’s gross national income allocated for official development assistance] is protected and guaranteed, this may find itself being diverted into other areas of government spending. There were also concerns about what’s been called the “securitization” of aid, particularly in terms of detailed cooperation with the military and the foreign office in the National Security Council. How do you react to those concerns? DfID being part of the National Security Council is a huge win for development because it means that development has a seat at the top table of government. Focusing on conflict states and conflicted areas is incredibly important in development because, at the moment, there is no conflict state that will reach any of the [Millennium Development Goals]. And if you don’t put at least some focus on areas that are caught up in conflict, the poor people who live in those countries lose out twice over – once because they are poor, secondly because they are in conflict but neglected by the international development community. So, I think there is a degree of lazy thinking involved in the analysis which you mentioned. >> In UK, Development Key to Promoting National Security Of course the other point to make is that aid cannot be spent on non-aid purposes. Not only have we made it clear that we will stand by the 0.7 percent figure, we will also abide by the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – Development Assistance Committee] rules, which determine what is and is not aid. Therefore, I was able, I think, to reassure any NGO who had those worries that there was this double arm lock on Britain’s development policies. Firstly, that we are increasing the money in accordance with our promises and, secondly, that we are spending that funding in accordance with the OECD-DAC rules. When the coalition government was formed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in May, people in the development community might have expected, or even hoped for, some Lib Dem input into international development, given that it’s traditionally a very strong part of their manifesto. Yet, all the major appointments were from the Conservative side. Can people be assured that things like a concentration on climate change are safe in your hands? I think it would be fair to say that in opposition we and the Liberal Democrats had had very similar views on development. I think the Liberal Democrats knew that we had put a great deal of effort and thought into our policies. I think that many of them had seen our Green Paper that we produced in opposition. And I think that [Deputy Prime Minister] Nick Clegg felt that there was very substantial agreement and didn’t, therefore, need, at this point, to have a minister in this department. I think that the cookie could easily have crumbled the other way and we might have a junior minister from the Liberal Democrats, but in the end that wasn’t the case. We are very comfortable with each other on development policy. There are no big issues. >> New UK Government Outlines Aid Reform Plans There are things that they are particularly interested in, for example the vulture funds legislation. The fact that this is a coalition government, which is a fusion of our two parties’ thoughts on policies, means that we are very respectful indeed and interested in any particular emphasis that they put. >> Leaked Document Advises UK Ministers to Ax 100 Aid Projects >> Nick Clegg, Andrew Mitchell Unveil DfID Aid Priorities Something that happened very early in your tenure was the Pakistan floods disaster. You have launched a review into humanitarian response with former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Paddy Ashdown, and you visited Pakistan. Are there any specific lessons from that situation that will feed into the review? We committed ourselves to the review in opposition, because I think that now is the right time to have a root and branch look at the way Britain does emergency relief. This is something we are good at and it’s something the British public expect us to be good at. The British public has shown, once again, in the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Pakistan, their huge generosity and support for people who are in dire circumstances. The review will go wherever it goes. There are a group of experts in these matters who are forming the backbone of the review under Paddy Ashdown’s chairmanship and I am looking forward with great interest to the advice which they give. But it’s clear that there are two things that stand out from emergency relief. One is that it should be rapid – that you should be able to get shelter, food and medicines to people who are in dire straits. The other is that coordination across the international community is important – it’s not sensible to have everyone getting on a plane and racing to a disaster zone. I think that will be part of what Lord Ashdown’s review will look at. >> Lord Ashdown Takes Helm of UK Humanitarian Aid Review On Pakistan: This was my first emergency. I went to Pakistan and then I went straight to New York to urge the international community to do more. That was particularly on the back of the awful circumstances I had seen for myself. There are lessons to learn from that, although it is an extraordinary disaster. It dwarfs the tsunami, the Haiti emergency and the Pakistan earthquake, if you add them all together, in terms of the people affected, and has swamped the capacity of the entire international community to take the necessary action in a speedy and effective way. The lessons still to be learned from Pakistan need to take that into account. At the MDG conference in New York, and in other places, you have put great emphasis on women as a priority in development. Can you explain the background to this thinking? We have been clear from day one that an effective development policy has to put at its center girls and women. Without that you won’t make the necessary progress. At every turn in development you see that girls and women bear the brunt of poverty. I’ve been very clear about that. I gave a speech to the Carnegie Institution in Washington and I spoke at the U.N. in the first few days in my job here. Having been the shadow international development secretary for five years in opposition, I’ve had a chance to study these things and that is the lesson I have taken. >> Nick Clegg: UK Aid Programs to Focus on Women The U.N. [MDG] summit did focus on something which the prime minister has championed, which is the MDG 5: maternal mortality, which is the most offtrack of all the MDGs. There was, I thought, a very good outcome in terms of what we were promising to do on maternal mortality. I think also on malaria, which is a particular passion of the coalition government, there is a clear priority from the summit. And also on nutrition, which is incredibly important. Of course, we need to make sure that people stand by these commitments, which hasn’t always been the case in the past. The [U.N.] secretary-general is in the process, at the moment, of hoovering up all the commitments and bringing them into one document. Then, there will be an assessment, on an annual basis, of how these commitments are being kept. Read more of Devex’s exclusive interview with Andrew Mitchell on the U.K.’s foreign aid funding targets and upcoming reform milestones. Read more DfID business news: - DfID Aid Reviews: Winners and Losers - DfID Procurement Process Now Tougher, More Competitive Read more international development business news.