Independent Commission for Aid Impact - Corporate Plan

[atseacliff]

The newly formed Independent Commission for Aid Impact is the body responsible for the scrutiny of UK aid. It's website notes that ICAI focuses on the maximisation of impact and effectiveness of the UK aid budget for beneficiaries and the delivery of value for money for the UK taxpayer. Led by a Chief Commissioner, ICAI reports to Parliament through the House of Commons International Development Select Committee.

The link to the website is attached below where its Corporate Plan for 2011-12 (including a list of planned upcoming studies) was recently published.

http://icai.independent.gov.uk/

[harnett]

Is this a good idea?  What is it supposed to do beyond the NAO?  Or is it a suitable vehicle for undermining aid spending by highlighting corruption and the views of the British people without comparing UK spending to the effectiveness of other organisations.  Would be interested to see how many boarders think this is a good idea.

[atseacliff]

Just a few thoughts.

First of all institutionally the role of an independent evaluation function for UK aid has the potential to be useful.  The World Bank's Independent Group is a useful comparison as it is charged with evaluating the activities of the World Bank, independent in the sense that the Director General reports directly to the World Bank Group's Board of Directors.

The roles of audit and evaluation are different although the distinction can become a little blurred with respect to performance audit.  I'd quibble with some of the distinctions raised in this link but it is good enough as a starting point. http://www.differencebetween.net/business/difference-between-audit-and-evaluation.  To my mind the most important difference is that ICAI will be focussed solely on development issues and will, it is to be hoped set a challenging and distinctive agenda to counter-balance DFID's corporate voice. 

As to the issue of comparing spending across government departments - that strikes me as a policy/political/budgeting issue (0.7% commitments in the elections manifasto etc.) which, to an extent will be informed by audit and evaluation work.

I'm looking forward to reading ICAI's reports before passing further judgement.   

[harnett]

Yes - potential to be useful.  Agreed.  My cynicism/wariness stems from the political environment in which this has been set up. 

Useful link to set the parameters between audit and evaluation - but again my point remains - has it been set up as part of a political agenda, rather than a body to produce an independant evaluation?  And of course I couldn't agree more that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating (or reading) of their evaluation reports.

Finally - just to clarify...  I really meant that DFID should be compared to similar aid bodies internationally rather than other UK departments (especially with respect to how much of its spending is misappropriated - the hot topic!) - as we all know on this board, if budget support is approved in a fragile/institutionally weak state, then there is a higher risk of misappropriations - indeed some argue that this spending fuels misappropriations (see the link on Somaliland: http://pfmboard.com/index.php?topic=4269.0 ).  Revealing such knowledge to the redtop press in the UK could well intensify the current furore against UK aid spending.  There is a big difference between a conclusion which reads that "DFID spending fuels corruption" as opposed to "DFID spending misappropriated less than all bilaterals with the exception of Denmark".

[harnett]

Just to take the wariness one step further...

The UK government has been increasing its support to philanthropic organisations and their initiatives over the past year or so (GAVI and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).  Obviously this is the alternative to routing its aid through DFID, and a potential conclusion for the ICAI.  Maybe it is correct in doing so, as laid out in this article: "When taxpayers are fed up, philanthropists can meet aid needs" 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/sep/23/philanthropy-can-meet-aid-needs?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

[atseacliff]

Or

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15711864

Puzzlement at cuts in budget cuts in FCO and DFID's grant to the World Service.  Surely they can't in any way be related!! 

[harnett]

Genius!!  Thanks for that.  Maybe we should start a poll - how many ways can the monies for international development be used without going through the Department for International Development - they'll be be maintaining the Pergau Dam in Malaysia with it next!!!!!!!  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119143.800-britains-other-dam-scandal.html

[petagny]

Who remembers the Overseas Development Administration, 'a functional wing' of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I wouldn't be surprised if DFID eventually disappears. After all, it was a Conservative government that dissolved the Overseas Development Ministry in 1970.

[harnett]

And here's the latest from the ICAI!  Rapid expansion of aid leaves it open to corruption.
From the ICAI website:

"ICAI today publishes its first reviews of the UK aid programme including: ICAI's Approach to Value for Money and Aid Effectiveness; DFID's Approach to Anti-Corruption; DFID's Climate Change Programme in Bangladesh; and DFID's Support for the Health Programme in Zimbabwe."  Downloads available here: http://icai.independent.gov.uk/2011/11/22/icai-publishes-first-four-reports/

And the take on this by the Guardian:
   

Ben Quinn
The Guardian, Tuesday 22 November 2011

UK aid programme open to corruption and fraud, report warns
Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, said his department would implement the watchdog's recommendations.

The rapid expansion of the UK's international aid programme has left it increasingly at risk from corruption and fraud, according to one of the first reports by an independent watchdog set up to scrutinise the government's international aid spending.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) described the Department for International Development's approach to tackling fraud and corruption as "fragmented" and in need of "significant improvements".

It said DfID should draw up an explicit anti-corruption strategy for any country where there was deemed to be a high risk of corruption and fraud and ensure there is better communication between international Dfid staff and colleagues based in the UK.

The report, published on Tuesday, also recommended that outside agencies should be engaged to carry out "due diligence" of the work of non-governmental agencies spending public money as part of aid projects outsourced by DfID.

It cited one occasion when pressure from DfID and other donors to minimise management costs led to an NGO not having enough staff or knowledge about the fraud-related risks to which its spending was exposed.

Using a new traffic-light ratings system to rate the department's work, ICAI rated DfID's anti-corruption effort as "amber-red" – meaning it is not performing well.

The rating was "strongly influenced" by the government's decision to rapidly increase the aid budget to 0.7% of gross national income while channelling a greater proportion to "fragile and conflict-affected states", according to the commission.

"This inevitably will expose the UK aid budget to higher levels of corruption risk," it said in the report.

"Our assessment is that DfID's current organisation of responsibilities for fraud and corruption is fragmented and that this inhibits a coherent and strategic response to this critical issue.

"DfID needs to give significantly greater attention to the fight against corruption to manage this increasing risk."

The ICAI said it was difficult to assess how effective existing risk management of aid spending had been because of what it said was a lack of any attempt by DfID to quantify the losses from corruption.

However, it added that support for anti-corruption commissions in countries receiving British aid had produced only "limited results" in terms of successful convictions.

"In order to manage the increasing risks presented by DfID's focus on fragile states, DfID must give more attention to the fight against corruption," said the ICAI chief commissioner, Graham Ward.

"DfID needs to invest more in analysis of corruption risks and a more strategic approach to tackling corruption proactively."

Two ICAI reports looking at specific aid projects in Bangladesh and Zimbabwe rated both programmes "green amber", meaning they were performing well but in need of some improvements.

Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, said his department would implement the ICAI's recommendations in full.

"One of the first things we did after the election was to set up this aid watchdog to scrutinise what we do and how we spend British aid money," he said.

"These reports show that much of our work is effective and provides value for money but there are some areas where we must do better."

"I have already changed how the UK delivers aid to ensure it is focused on tangible results on the ground, but we will use these reports to identify further reforms. The reports found no evidence of corruption in our existing programmes."