Management Board | Development Committee | Audit Committee | Human Resources Committee

DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings

In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement the Management Board will aim to:

communicate the vision, role, direction and priorities of DFID to staff and other stakeholders;
ensure DFID's financial resources and staff are allocated and managed effectively;
monitor and improve DFID's performance;
protect and enhance DFID’s reputation as a highly effective international development organisation.

Meeting on 28 June 2006

Topic	Attending	Purpose	MB Obj	Papers
White Paper III	Moazzam Malik	To agree proposed new policy commitments in the White Paper	A, B, C, D	White Paper cover note(23 kb)
Strategy for DFID's approach to working with multilaterals	Jim Drummond Amanda Rowlatt	To agree the strategy for improving DFID's engagement with multilaterals	A, B, C and D	Framing Paper Assessing multilateral effectiveness(274 kb) Assessing multilateral effectiveness cover note(17 kb)
Strategy for Europe	Amanda Rowlatt	To agree what we want from European institutions and how we work with them	A, B, C and D	Strategy for Europe covering note(41 kb)
Attendees Regrets	Suma Chakrabarti (Chair) Mark Lowcock, Minouche Shafik, Helen Ghosh (Non-Executive Director), Sue Owen Bill Griffiths (Non-Executive Director)
Observing	In Palace Street - Caroline Harris, Jessica Smith, Mark Richardson, Martin Leach, Iain Jones, Delna Ghandhi, Mandeep Kaur-Grewal, Jessica Troni, Sarah Weed, Hiramani Ghimire and Lisa Harlow; Munira Parkar, Peter Forsey, Kenny Dick, Alistair Fernie, Carl Kalapesi, Sally Taylor, Lucia Wilde, Tanweena Chowdhury, Jo Yvon, Sian Edmunds, Charlotte French, Rowan Yamanaka, Abigail Robinson, John Moye, Andrew Hill, Andrew Rogerson, Chris Carter, Rob Rudy, Loraine Po, Andrew Kenningham, Ben le Roith and Clare Moye In Abercrombie House - Moira Marshall, Kenneth Simpson, Linda Sloan, Liz Scott, Julie Stevenson, Stewart McBride, Clare Maclennan, Susan Cassidy, Kenny Kennedy, Phil Davis, Clare McCanny, Linda Sloan and Steven Bartlett In Ethiopia: Rebecca Terezon In Brussels: Felicity Rose In Cambodia: Robert Ower

White Paper III

Richard Montgomery and Richard Calvert introduced this item. The key points made were as follows:

the Board were asked to agree the proposed policy commitments. The White Paper contains over 160 commitments, of which 30 are expected to need additional financial resources, such as on basic services and research;
we can meet the immediate costs of these new commitments; and
the longer term costs will need to be discussed in the context of the CSR and the staffing implications should be assessed as part of our prioritisation exercise in the Autumn.

In discussion the Board:

noted these new commitments need to be managed within the constraints of a potentially flat or declining headcount. This will involve reprioritising and moving staff from other areas. We will also need to look at which of these commitments will be managed by us and which can be managed by others. The Board were content that these issues could be addressed as part of the corporate planning exercise in the Autumn;
agreed on the need for a clear baseline and the methodology for assessing what classifies as basic services expenditure. DG programmes would like to involved in this exercise. The methodology should be transparent and made public when we publish the figures;
noted that we will need to delimit the funding and the nature of the support we will provide for the anti-corruption unit;
asked how far we were constraining future financial flexibility by making so many commitments now. Richard Calvert expected that there would continue to be some flexibility but agreed to report back to the Board on this; and
noted that it will take time to deliver on these commitments. Tendering and consultation processes will need to completed before work can commence on a number of these commitments.

In conclusion the Board:

thanked the White Paper team for all their hard work;
approved the set of policy commitments proposed;
noted that this should be financially manageable through to 2007/08;
that FCPD should inform the Board in the run up to the Resource Allocation Round of what discretionary capacity and financial flexibility would be left after making these commitments;
on the need for a transparent methodology for assessing our expenditure on public services;
that we need to look at parameters of our support to the anticorruption unit; and
that tough choices will need to be made on staffing. The headcount ceilings will be revisited in the Autumn as part of the corporate planning exercise.

Strategy for DFID's approach to working with multilaterals

a) Measuring Multilateral Effectiveness

Amanda Rowlatt and Jim Drummond introduced this item. The key points made were as follows:

the methodology for measuring the effectiveness of our multilateral spend has not been historically as robust as that used for our bilateral assistance but we are working to improve this;
there is currently no multilateral peer review process as there is for bilateral donors; and
the Board’s were asked how useful a tool the effectiveness summaries the team had prepared were.

In discussion the Board:

welcomed this piece of work and noted that the assessments can be a valuable tool for encouraging change and reform;
agreed that we should publish a set at a time, starting with the major institutions we work with;
agreed we should have a strategy for making these studies public as we will want to use them externally. It would be useful to have an independent group, largely from recipient countries, to comment on and validate the judgements made;
noted that these studies should increasingly inform the allocation of funds to multilaterals, and that FCPD should consider the scope to incorporate a stronger multilateral element into our future “value for money” programmes;
questioned whether we were being frank enough about the performance of the institutions and agreed on the need to be robust; and
agreed the assessments should include sectoral reviews to enable direct comparisons between multilaterals, management and country level capacity.

In conclusion the Board:

praised the accessible format of the summaries;
agreed on the need for the assessments to be robust and be consistent with the messages we are delivering to the institution;
agreed that we should use build effectiveness issues more clearly into future financing and “value for money” decisions
agreed this should be discussed with ministers in the second half of July; and
agreed we should publish assessments of the principal multilaterals we work with by the end of the year with the aim of sharing them at the Vietnam conference on in February. The conclusions should be tested with an independent group before publication.

b) International Development Association (IDA) 15

Amanda Rowlatt and Gavin McGillvray introduced this item. The key points made were as follows:

International Development Association (IDA), is the single largest source of concessional assistance for developing countries, committing $8.7bn in 2005;
the UK’s share of IDA has risen from 7.8% in IDA 12 to 13.18% in IDA 14;
the IDA 14 Mid Term Review and IDA 15 negotiations provide an opportunity to use our collective influence to influence the World Bank’s policy and direction. It is expected that the negotiations will include discussion on the extent to which the Bank provides assistance in the form of grants as opposed to loans. It will also look at the Bank’s engagement in fragile states. Voice and corruption are also live issues; and
they asked the Board to provide a steer on IDA – 15 policy issues and negotiating strategy.

In discussion the Board;

agreed, as our share of IDA is increasing, we should work to ensure that this results in an increase in influence. If we are going to be one of the largest shareholders, we need to ensure we get a sufficient “bang for our buck”. We need to ensure we have clear negotiating objectives. More work will now need to be done on identifying these objectives;
agreed we should explore options with a lower growth path for IDA, if performance is unsatisfactory;
noted our negotiating position will be strengthened if we had a better understanding of the demands and negotiating objectives of other shareholders; .
asked if we should move towards an independent chair for the replenishment process, as there are for the other IFIs;
agreed we should resist a move towards the provision of more grants (as opposed to loans). Best estimates suggest that 30% of IDA 14 will be provided as grants. There were concerns raised about the impact of a move towards grants on the longer term financial position of the Bank and it was agreed that grants were not their “comparative advantage”
noted IDA is focused on regions with the largest concentrations of poverty and asked what more could be done to further focus IDA on poverty reduction; and
agreed we should avoid providing supplementary finance and focus on getting the maximum impact from our core contribution.

In conclusion the Board agreed:

the proposed strategy should be submitted to ministers in advance of the Annual Meetings of the World and IMF;
the financing scenarios proposed in the paper a low growth option;
on need to move towards an independent chair for IDA 15. This would need to be done quickly;
we should focus our negotiations on core rather than supplementary funding; and
on the need for clear objectives for what we expect to achieve from the negotiations, a robust negotiating stance and to understand the positions of the other key stakeholders. We will need to involve ministers from an early stage.

c) Strategy for Europe

Amanda Rowlatt introduced this item. The key points made were as follows:

the Board were asked whether to commission further scoping work on the reform of EC grant institutions. The next window for substantive reform will be the arrival of the new European Commission and Parliament in 2009;
a strategy is needed for our engagement with the European Investment Bank – the EIB’s 2.7bn a year needs more attention; and
DFID’s engagement with Europe to date has been focused on Brussels. More could be done to link up our engagement in-country with Commission Delegations and to our work in Brussels.

In discussion the Board:

agreed we should encourage debate in Europe and the sharing of analysis on the challenges faced by and the options for the future of EU Grant Aid institutions. It would be useful if we could get the EU research network to work up options;
agreed we need to look at the hard lending windows in the IFIs. The Board noted that the EIB’s mandate is now outdated – the EIB was set up in the 1950s because of failures in capital markets in Europe, which are now working well. We should work with the Treasury to encourage the EIB to focus more on developing countries, but consistent with good practice;
asked if there was scope for an EIB and EBRD merger; and
noted more can be done to increase our influence in the EC. We should identify specific objectives for our engagement, prioritising 4-6 key interventions which we push on every front. We should continue to work closely with the HMT and FCO and utilise their influence in Europe. We should also consider whether we have enough EU fast streamers, DFID staff in the Cabinet Office European Secretariat and staff with the skills and knowledge to influence Europe. Increased senior official time on the EU would also help to increase our influence.

In conclusion the Board:

agreed the EIB’s development lending needs to be reformed and requested a piece of work looking at the hard lending windows of the EIB and other IFIs;
agreed that we should work to stimulate (but not necessarily lead) debate in Europe on the role of grant aid institutions;
agreed on the need to encourage the EIB to focus more on being an effective lender to the developing world;
agreed that we need to identify priority areas for engagement with EU; and
noted that senior official time was key to influencing the EC. Sue Wardell’s Senior Management Review will look at whether more senior posts should be dedicated to our engagement with Europe.

AOB

DfID Retirement Age

A default retirement age has been agreed for the SCS across Whitehall but not for lower grades. This issue was discussed at the HRC committee yesterday.

The Board agreed on a default retirement age of 65 for staff below the SCS, with a review in two years time.

Revised MB template

A more extensive template for Board papers has been developed based on the Treasury Board papers. It includes new mandatory sections on the resource implications of Board decisions. The Board agreed the revised MB template and urged the Board Secretary to ensure its mandatory use.