ICAI found that the FCO has put major effort into developing the capacity to deliver rapid and flexible support in response to the Arab Spring. Its largest programme in the Middle East and North Africa region, the Arab Partnership Participation Fund (APPF), has a sound strategy and good delivery capacity, although limited by weaknesses in project management. APPF shows some promising early signs of impact, supporting key transition processes such as elections, constitution-making and media reform, although the volatile environment and the small scale of the investments limit the prospects for sustainable impact. While the FCO has proved adept at learning from operational challenges, it needs to improve the way it measures results.

The British Council’s response to the Arab Spring has been considered, strategic and a good complement to the FCO’s. It has a strong delivery model based on good local partnerships and beneficiary engagement and has proved effective at its core goal of skills development and individual empowerment, with some wider impact through social mobilisation.

Graham Ward, ICAI Chief Commissioner, said: “The FCO and the British Council reacted rapidly and strategically to the Arab Spring balancing risk and reward. Other programmes in the FCO and beyond should consider the lessons that could be learned from the Arab Partnership’s clear strategic direction and effective delivery mechanisms.”

Following the wave of democratisation movements that swept the Middle East and North Africa from late 2010, the UK Government established the Arab Partnership, with £110 million in programme funds over four years. Through an examination of the Arab Partnership and other FCO and British Council aid in the region, we have assessed how well the two organisations have responded to a major new challenge. ICAI reviewed the APPF portfolio and conducted in-depth investigations in Tunisia and Egypt.

The overall rating for the programmes we examined is Green-Amber. The Arab Partnership represents a significant step forward in the FCO’s ability to deliver Official Development Assistance (ODA) effectively and it is a welcome innovation. We found good collaboration between the FCO, DFID and other UK Government organisations within the Arab Partnership. The focus of joint effort is where it should be – at the strategic and technical level. There are improvements that should be made in project management and financial systems which would add further value to the programme.

ICAI recognises that the immediate response to the Arab Spring in late 2010 and 2011 required rapid and flexible support and commends the FCO and British Council response. We recommend that the FCO introduces explicit theories of change into its country strategies that identify the outcomes it wants to achieve and how they will be achieved and measured. We also identified a deficiency in sharing learning that should be addressed for the benefit of partners and country programmes.

We recommend that the British Council continues its strong evaluation of beneficiary feedback but improves its weaker systems for impact measurement.

Notes to editors:

For further information please contact Sam Harrison on 020 7270 6742 or email  S-Harrison@icai.independent.gov.uk. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutinising UK aid. We focus on maximising the effectiveness of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and on delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. For further details on ICAI, the workplan and for links to each report please visit www.independent.gov.uk/icai.

ICAI’s Chief Commissioner is Graham Ward CBE. The three other Commissioners are: Mark Foster, John Githongo and Diana Good. Their biographies can be found on the ICAI website.

These reports were prepared by ICAI with the assistance of KPMG LLP, Agulhas Applied Knowledge, Center of Evaluation for Global Action (CEGA) and the Swedish Institute for Public Administration (SIPU International).

ICAI reports are written to be accessible to a general readership and we use a simple ‘traffic light’ system to report our judgement on each programme or topic we review, as follows:

I.          Green: The programme performs well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Some improvements are needed.

II.         Green-Amber: The programme performs relatively well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Improvements should be made.

III.        Amber-Red: The programme performs relatively poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Significant improvements should be made.

IV.        Red: The programme performs poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Immediate and major changes need to be made.

DFID’s use of contractors to deliver aid programmes; and

DFID’s Support for Civil Society Organisations through Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPAs).

ICAI has given both programmes a rating of Green-Amber.

Graham Ward, ICAI Chief Commissioner, said: “The case studies that we examined for both DFID’s use of contractors and programme partnership arrangements show promise for impact on intended beneficiaries. Civil society organisations and private sector contractors are valuable delivery mechanisms for aid and we have made a series of recommendations to increase the value that they deliver.”

The reports provide insight into DFID’s use of third parties to deliver aid programmes through different channels and mechanisms. In the evidence that we considered, both civil society organisations and contractors have helped to drive innovation and, while it is too early to say whether all the programmes will have a sustainable impact, the signs are promising.

DFID’s use of contractors to deliver aid programmes

The overall rating for the programmes we examined is Green-Amber. ICAI reviewed the DFID Central Procurement Group and a range of programmes with a combined contract value of £264 million. The case studies show that contractors are an effective option for delivering aid. DFID has selected contractors that have delivered positive results at competitive fee rates. DFID’s poor end-to-end programme management, however, has led to delays. In the case studies that we examined, this has had the greatest impact during the mobilisation phase and is exacerbated by a lack of ‘whole life’ individual responsibility for programmes. In addition, learning is not being captured from contractors or used to inform future programming.

The reform of DFID’s central procurement group has improved processes but is too slow and lacks prioritisation. As a result, decisions to use contractors are not guided by a strategic plan to deploy the right contractors, including major, niche and innovative new entrant organisations, to best effect.

DFID’s Support for Civil Society Organisations through Programme Partnership Arrangements

The overall rating for the programmes we examined is Green-Amber.  DFID makes grants to a value of between £151,000 and £11 million per year to 41 civil society organisations (CSOs) that share its objectives and that it believes are strong delivery partners. Our review considered six PPA agreements of varying size and type.

ICAI recognises that a vibrant civil society sector is an essential part of the UK aid landscape. While it is too early to conclude on the overall impact of the current

funding round, we find that PPAs are helping to drive innovation in the recipient organisations. In particular, they are improving the quality of performance management and accountability for results. We think it is likely that these changes will lead to improved results for intended beneficiaries, not just from PPA funding but across the CSOs’ full range of activities.

Notes to editors:

1. For further information please contact Sam Harrison on 020 7270 6742 or  S-Harrison@icai.independent.gov.uk. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutinising UK aid. We focus on maximising the effectiveness of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and on delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. For further details on ICAI, the workplan and for links to each report please visit www.independent.gov.uk/icai.

2. ICAI’s Chief Commissioner is Graham Ward CBE. The three other Commissioners are: Mark Foster, John Githongo and Diana Good. Their biographies can be found on the ICAI website.

3.  The Programme Partnership report was prepared by ICAI with the assistance of Agulhas Applied Knowledge. KPMG LLP were not involved since they provided one of the services provided in one of our case studies.

4. The Use of Contractors report was prepared by ICAI with the assistance of Concerto Partners LLP. In order to prevent a potential conflict of interest, Concerto were appointed through open competition to carry out the review. Concerto do not have any contracts with DFID and the review was carried out in isolation from other contractors with which ICAI works.

5.  ICAI reports are written to be accessible to a general readership and we use a simple ‘traffic light’ system to report our judgement on each programme or topic we review, as follows:

I.          Green: The programme performs well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Some improvements are needed.

II.         Green-Amber: The programme performs relatively well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Improvements should be made.

III.        Amber-Red: The programme performs relatively poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Significant improvements should be made.

IV.        Red: The programme performs poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Immediate and major changes need to be made.

We are now entering a period of consultation on the revised framework which will run until 24 May 2013. If you have any comments or views, please email enquiries@icai.independent.gov.uk  or post them to:

The Secretariat
Independent Commission for Aid Impact
Dover House
66 Whitehall
London SW1A 2AU

The report provides insight into the UK’s relationship with UNICEF, which is an important partner, by examining delivery of a range of aid programmes in Africa. The report recognises that UNICEF is delivering tangible benefits but that DFID needs to manage UNICEF as a strategic partner and provide greater clarity to UNICEF with regard to its role in and expectations of each programme.

Graham Ward, ICAI Chief Commissioner, said: “DFID has a strong relationship with UNICEF; we recommend that the department uses its influence to strengthen UNICEF’s management of programmes, with a greater focus on delivery and results.”

Over the period 2007-11, the UK Government was the second largest donor to UNICEF after the United States, contributing £690 million. The review looked at the impact and effectiveness of DFID’s partnership with UNICEF, by focussing on UNICEF’s work on the ground, implementing programmes part-funded by DFID country offices. ICAI examined a  water and sanitation programme in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, two complex health programmes in Sierra Leone and single-focus malaria bed net programmes in Sierra Leone and Ghana. In each case, DFID was the major donor.

The overall rating for the programmes we examined is Green-Amber. DFID trusts UNICEF to deliver programmes and achieve results in support of the Millennium Development Goals. It also relies on UNICEF to work in difficult environments, manage multiple delivery partners and carry out large-scale procurements. DFID does not manage this important relationship in a systematic manner and uses a relatively light touch with UNICEF compared to other delivery partners. Programmes are delivering results but there is evidence of delays and shortfalls, with some questionable value for money. ICAI recommends that DFID provides greater clarity to UNICEF with regard to the expectations of its role in each programme. DFID is now focussing more on results and value for money in its relationship with UNICEF, maintaining closer control where justified by budgets or risk levels and it should continue this improvement.

Notes to editors:

For further information please contact Sam Harrison on S-Harrison@icai.independent.gov.uk. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutinising UK aid. We focus on maximising the effectiveness of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and on delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. For further details on ICAI, the workplan and for links to each report please visit www.independent.gov.uk/icai.

ICAI’s Chief Commissioner is Graham Ward CBE. The three other Commissioners are: Mark Foster, John Githongo and Diana Good. Their biographies can be found on the ICAI website.

These reports were prepared by ICAI with the assistance of KPMG LLP, Agulhas Applied Knowledge, Center of Evaluation for Global Action (CEGA) and the Swedish Institute for Public Administration (SIPU International).

ICAI reports are written to be accessible to a general readership and we use a simple ‘traffic light’ system to report our judgement on each programme or topic we review, as follows:

I.          Green: The programme performs well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Some improvements are needed.

II.         Green-Amber: The programme performs relatively well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Improvements should be made.

III.        Amber-Red: The programme performs relatively poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Significant improvements should be made.

IV.        Red: The programme performs poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Immediate and major changes need to be made.

• DFID’s Livelihoods Work in Western Odisha, India, rated as Green;
• DFID’s Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programming in Sudan; rated as Amber-Red; and
• DFID’s Peace and Security programme in Nepal, rated as Green-Amber.

Together, the three reports provide perspective on a range of UK aid programmes in Africa and Asia in differing environments.

Graham Ward, ICAI Chief Commissioner, said: “These reports demonstrate the importance of good planning, beneficiary involvement and responsiveness to changing situations in delivering aid programmes. DFID’s livelihoods work in India shows how a project can improve the lives of beneficiaries significantly when it works with them to achieve clear objectives and takes real account of political analysis and lesson-learning. Difficulties in adapting plans in changing situations such as in Sudan and in Nepal may hinder the programmes there from meeting their full potential or undermine the impact already delivered.”

DFID’s Livelihoods Work in Western Odisha

DFID’s completed £33 million, ten-year project sought to reduce poverty by building infrastructure and supporting community-based business. It was backed by strong local community involvement and political commitment. Beneficiaries now have increased incomes and more secure livelihoods, with communities better able to respond to extreme climate conditions such as drought or heavy rains.

DFID developed a strong project based on lesson learning and detailed political analysis. There were sustainable impacts in areas where the project delivered a comprehensive package of support. Results have been mixed, however, in areas where a less intensive approach was implemented. ICAI found that this project could have been improved by a better planned exit strategy, which would, in turn, have offered greater post-project support to the Government of Odisha.

The overall rating for the project is Green. ICAI has assessed the project as successful and considers many aspects of it to be best practice which should be used to inform future programming for livelihoods and climate resilience projects. These include transparency; long-term planning; and budgeting at all levels.

DFID’s Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programming in Sudan

DFID’s response to the Darfur conflict in Sudan since 2003 has been one of its largest ever humanitarian operations. In the absence of a clear political settlement, the humanitarian support has continued, even though many displaced people have now settled permanently in new locations.  ICAI evaluated the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) component of the DFID response.

DFID has been the largest contributor to a United Nations-led Common Humanitarian Fund (UN-CHF), with £36 million in WASH support. ICAI found that this was appropriate in the context of a large-scale emergency response.  While impact data is scarce, the early interventions helped to save lives by contributing to a reduction in the incidence of water-borne disease. As the conflict has become protracted, however, the annual emergency support has led to dependency and is not providing sustainable solutions.

DFID attempted to invest more sustainably in water security through the £6.7 million Darfur Urban Water Supply project which was delivered by the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS). ICAI assessed this to be a poorly designed project which did not sufficiently take account of institutional and economic realities. The project has, therefore, delivered little or no impact for the intended beneficiaries.

Success was achieved through the direct partnership with Tearfund, a non-governmental organisation. DFID’s £2.8 million funding has contributed to a community-based approach, which offers a real prospect of strong and sustainable impact.

The overall rating for the programmes is Amber-Red. Overall, ICAI finds that DFID needs to rethink its approach to chronic, long-term disaster in Sudan. ICAI has recommended that DFID produces a strategy for transition away from emergency programming in Darfur to sustainable investments in infrastructure and services.

DFID’s Peace and Security Programme in Nepal

Nepal’s decade-long civil war ended in 2006. ICAI has assessed five DFID-funded peace and security projects, costing £53 million, which are intended to support Nepal’s transition to peace and which include rehabilitation of former child soldiers, support to elections, access to justice and police reform.

The assessment found that DFID’s initial planning was good, took account of the context and was sensitive to issues relating to the past conflict. The exception was DFID’s proposed Police Reform project, which has now been cancelled. DFID used strong delivery partners and projects have been implemented well. This has resulted in a significant positive impact in supporting the peace process.

DFID has not, however, responded adequately to the changing political situation, including the current political deadlock. Urgent action is required to reflect this change to avoid jeopardising future success.

The overall rating for the programme is Green-Amber. ICAI has recommended that a new strategy be developed and that DFID be more responsive in its project management to build on the work already delivered.

Notes to editors:

For further information please contact Sam Harrison on 020 7270 6742 or  email S-Harrison@icai.independent.gov.uk.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutinising UK aid. We focus on maximising the effectiveness of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and on delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. For further details on ICAI, the workplan and for links to each report please visit www.independent.gov.uk/icai.

ICAI’s Chief Commissioner is Graham Ward CBE. The three other Commissioners are: Mark Foster, John Githongo and Diana Good.

These reports were prepared by ICAI with the assistance of KPMG LLP, Agulhas Applied Knowledge, Center of Evaluation for Global Action (CEGA) and the Swedish Institute for Public Administration (SIPU International).

ICAI reports are written to be accessible to a general readership and we use a simple ‘traffic light’ system to report our judgement on each programme or topic we review, as follows:

I.          Green: The programme performs well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Some improvements are needed.

II.         Green-Amber: The programme performs relatively well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Improvements should be made.

III.        Amber-Red: The programme performs relatively poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Significant improvements should be made.

IV.        Red: The programme performs poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Immediate and major changes need to be made.

The proposed reviews will cover a number of sectors that ICAI has not previously looked at including research, transparency and accountability, trade and DFID’s work with the private sector. Additionally, we intend to review DFID’s funding of NGOs through Programme Partnership Agreements.

The EU is the world’s second-largest aid donor after the United States, providing aid to more than 150 countries. UK contributions to the EU specifically for aid expenditure are approximately £1.4 billion a year, 16% of DFID’s total aid spending. The review focusses on the impact of EU aid on the ground in low-income countries through three case studies: Mozambique, Tajikistan and Uganda.

The ICAI Report found that, at a central policy level, DFID had a clear focus for its engagement with the EU, with evidence of DFID influencing EU policy. DFID, however, does not have the same level of assurance as it has from other multilateral partners such as the World Bank. This is important, given the substantial scale of the UK’s contribution and the limited discretion the UK has about the EU as a route for aid. The review also found that the quality of engagement between DFID country offices and EU delegations was variable at the country level. Because of this DFID does not make full use of the potential combined impact of UK and EU funds.

The involvement of recipient governments in EU programmes, particularly on planning, is clear. There is less evidence, however, of how intended beneficiaries are involved in the design and assessment of EU programmes. Weaknesses in the EU’s own performance management and results framework make an overall view of the impact of EU programmes difficult to achieve. The evidence from our case studies is mixed. There are some positive results but long-term impact and sustainability have not been demonstrated and exit strategies are not clear.

Overall rating: Amber-Red

Recommendations:

• DFID should set out clearly (a) what action is needed and (b) how long it will take to deliver the same level of assurance on its contributions to the EU as it achieves elsewhere. This should include improvements to the performance management of EU aid and better access to EU information;
• DFID should give better guidance to DFID country offices on how they should contribute to EU country strategies and to existing co-ordination forums, so as to ensure a better combined impact from UK and EU funds and a greater focus on actual EU performance;
• DFID should ensure that the EU secures ongoing input from intended beneficiaries and effective intelligence on what is needed on the ground, in order to inform and challenge dialogue with recipient governments;
• DFID should engage more actively on developing and driving through the EU’s planned improvement of its risk management processes, given the potential this has for improving the impact of EU aid.

Graham Ward CBE, ICAI Chief Commissioner said: “The scale and coverage of the EU’s expenditure provides a considerable opportunity for DFID to contribute

to aid programmes worldwide. This report shows that, despite making good headway in influencing EU aid policy, DFID needs to push the EU for a better

account of where taxpayers’ money is going and to engage further with EU projects and programmes at a country level to ensure that it is spent to best effect.”

Notes to editors:

For further information please contact Tom McDonald on 020 7270 6779 or t-mcdonald@icai.independent.gov.uk. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutinising UK aid. We focus on maximising the effectiveness of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and on delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. For further details on ICAI, the work plan and for links to each report, please visitwww.independent.gov.uk/icai. ICAI’s Chief Commissioner is Graham Ward CBE. The three other Commissioners are Mark Foster, John Githongo and Diana Good. Their biographies can be found on the ICAI website. This report was prepared by ICAI with the assistance of KPMG LLP, Agulhas Applied Knowledge, Center of Evaluation for Global Action (CEGA) and the Swedish Institute for Public Administration (SIPU International).

ICAI Traffic Light Ratings:

• Green: The programme performs well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Some improvements are needed.
• Green-Amber: The programme performs relatively well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Improvements should be made.
• Amber-Red: The programme performs relatively poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Significant improvements should be made.
• Red: The programme performs poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Immediate and major changes need to be made.

DFID has spent £102 million to date, with a further £126 million committed to 2019. It supports 10 of Nigeria’s 36 States through two programmes:

• the UNICEF-led Girls’ Education Programme (GEP); and
• the Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria (ESSPIN), delivered by a Cambridge Education-led consortium.

The national environment is very challenging, with too few effective teachers, poor infrastructure and unpredictable State funding.

ICAI engaged with over 900 local people, including pupils, parents, grandparents, teachers, head teachers and community leaders. They identified only limited benefits from the education provided. Around a third of eligible children in the ten States are out of school and ICAI found no major improvement in pupil learning: 

• GEP and ESSPIN have helped to create ten-year State education sector plans which are neither realistic nor affordable. Insufficient and erratic State funding leaves the education system lacking infrastructure and other essentials necessary to improve learning outcomes. 
• Key education building blocks – such as adequate facilities, teachers who are present and committed, routine pupil attendance and appropriate curricula and teaching materials – are often missing from schools. 

GEP and ESSPIN are delivering similar programmes but the ESSPIN approach appears more likely to succeed in the long term. UNICEF was reappointed for the third phase of GEP without competition, which we do not believe was fully supported by the available evidence of their performance. 

There have been some successes, including support for female teachers and school-based management committees and an innovative approach to Qur’anic schools, attended by most Muslim children in northern Nigeria. Implementation issues, however, are limiting the impact on pupil learning.  

Recommendations: 

• Overall rating: Amber-Red 
• DFID should create a single education programme in 2014 focussing rigorously on basic reading, writing and arithmetic in the early years of primary schooling and building on the lessons learned, with aligned initiatives for teacher training and infrastructure. 
• DFID should work with its partners and each participating State to secure a clear agreement about the policy changes and financial contributions required to improve enrolment and learning and to introduce effective financial management and resource planning.  
• DFID should work with UNICEF to achieve significant improvement in the performance of GEP over the next 12 months.  
• DFID should address implementation issues limiting impact through the Female Trainee Teachers Scholarship Scheme, School-Based Management Committees and Qur’anic schools.

Graham Ward CBE, ICAI Chief Commissioner, said: “The communities we spoke to in Nigeria want their children to become self-reliant by learning to read and write. Our review, however, indicates no major improvement in pupil learning, with significant numbers of children out of school. In our view, DFID’s programmes will only become sustainable when they can routinely help to unlock State governments’ budgets to fund the required improvements both adequately and equitably.” 

Notes to editors:

For further information please contact Tom McDonald on 020 7270 6779 or t-mcdonald@icai.independent.gov.uk. 

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutinising UK aid. We focus on maximising the effectiveness of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and on delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. For further details on ICAI, the work plan and for links to each report, please visit www.independent.gov.uk/icai.

ICAI’s Chief Commissioner is Graham Ward CBE. The three other Commissioners are Mark Foster, John Githongo and Diana Good. Their biographies can be found on the ICAI website. This report was prepared by ICAI with the assistance of KPMG LLP, Agulhas Applied Knowledge, Center of Evaluation for Global Action (CEGA) and the Swedish Institute for Public Administration (SIPU International). 

ICAI Traffic Light Ratings:

• Green: The programme performs well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Some improvements are needed.
• Green-Amber: The programme performs relatively well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Improvements should be made.
• Amber-Red: The programme performs relatively poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Significant improvements should be made.
• Red: The programme performs poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Immediate and major changes need to be made.

Pakistan is a large country facing major development challenges. It is unlikely to achieve its Millennium Development Goals on education and maternal and child health by 2015. These challenges are compounded by significant levels of violence, high corruption risks and recurring natural disasters, including the 2010 floods, which affected an area four times the size of Britain.

The ICAI report found many commendable aspects to DFID Pakistan’s work:

• The education programme shows a sophisticated design and some promising early results, including improving education quality. We welcome experiments in working with the low-cost private sector as a potentially cost-effective way of reaching out-of-school children. It is too early to assess whether the results are sustainable and scalable.
• The humanitarian work shows good evidence of learning and a strong focus on value for money. There are good results for the modest scale of investment but Pakistan’s lack of preparedness for future disasters is concerning.
• The health programme, however, has faced major difficulties over its life, which we believe should have been addressed in a more timely fashion. The difficult institutional environment clearly undermined impact. The programme is now undergoing substantial redesign.

UK aid to Pakistan has scaled up dramatically in recent years and will continue to do so, from £87 million in 2007-08 to a planned £446 million in 2014-15. This would make Pakistan the largest recipient of UK bilateral aid in the world. DFID has not delivered programmes on this scale in Pakistan before. This challenge is magnified by the difficulties of working in insecure provinces, weaknesses in budgetary processes and public financial management systems and recent constitutional reform devolving federal power to the four provinces, which is leading to uncertainty. This suggests that active risk management should be applied to programme scale-up.

 Recommendations:

• Overall rating: Green-Amber
  
• DFID should ensure that the conditions for scaling up its programmes are clearly articulated and that it retains the flexibility to reallocate funding away from under-performing areas.
• DFID should increase its support for promoting affordable and equitable private sector delivery of health and education services to poor communities.
• DFID should make building resilience to natural disasters at the household and community levels a core element of its programme.
• DFID programmes funded through country systems should include agreed standards for budget integrity as a condition of scaling up.

Graham Ward CBE, ICAI Chief Commissioner, said: “Overall, we found that the DFID Pakistan programme is dynamic and innovative, with a good range of impressive initiatives. DFID has no track record, however, of delivering programmes in Pakistan on the scale that is now contemplated. Delivering aid there also involves considerable challenges, so we believe that the planned programme scale-up needs to be approached carefully.”

Notes to editors:

For further information please contact Tom McDonald on 020 7270 6779 or  t-mcdonald@icai.independent.gov.uk.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutinising UK aid. We focus on maximising the effectiveness of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and on delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. For further details on ICAI, the workplan and for links to each report, please visit www.independent.gov.uk/icai.

ICAI’s Chief Commissioner is Graham Ward CBE. The three other Commissioners are Mark Foster, John Githongo and Diana Good. Their biographies can be found on the ICAI website.

This report was prepared by ICAI with the assistance of KPMG LLP, Agulhas Applied Knowledge, Center of Evaluation for Global Action (CEGA) and the Swedish Institute for Public Administration (SIPU International).

 ICAI Traffic Light Ratings:

• Green: The programme performs well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Some improvements are needed.
• Green-Amber: The programme performs relatively well overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Improvements should be made.
• Amber-Red: The programme performs relatively poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Significant improvements should be made.
• Red: The programme performs poorly overall against ICAI’s criteria for effectiveness and value for money. Immediate and major changes need to be made.