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


DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings


Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - March 2005

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

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

Topic

Attending

Purpose

MB Obj.

2005

Graham Stegman, Margaret Cund, Adrian Wood, David Batt, Graham Teskey, Joy Hutcheon (via VC)

To consider DFID's plans for the presidencies, and agree any additional action needed.

A, B, C and D

Attendees

Suma Chakrabarti (Chair), Mark Lowcock, Masood Ahmed, Minouche Shafik, Helen Ghosh

Observing

Georgia Taylot, Sophie Pongracz, Mary Lun, Gary Jenkins (PD), Melinda Simmons, Richard Dewdney (2005), Hamid Kenedy (APD), James Zasha (DFID Nigeria), Peter Riddelsdell (Knowledge), Amisha Patel (TMG) and DFID Jerusalem and DFID Tanzania (via VC)

Update on G8/2005

1. Graham Stegmann introduced the update on 2005. The session would consider three areas in detail following the Management Board's discussion on the G8/EU Presidencies at its meeting on 22 February:

    a. issues arising on which there were still outstanding questions in terms of priorities, policy or resource mobilisations;
    b. a core script on 2005/G8 priorities for use by the Management Board and Ministers;
    c. advice to the Management Board on how its members might contribute further to the 2005 agenda.

Three papers had been prepared to respond to these. Advice was specifically sought in relation to papers 1 and 3.

2. The Commission for Africa (CfA) report (published 11 March) had received good coverage. Like the Sachs report, it provided clear headlines and recommendations on action needed. The Department needed to be clear about what could be achieved, how to drive this forward and ensure a sense of shared purpose (both within the office and across Whitehall), and what the implications of this were for DFID. As President of the G8 in particular, we needed be aware of the lack of a consolidated view across international system and agree to what extent DFID would continue to lead work on resolving this.

2. In discussion, the Board:

    a. agreed with Graham the need to work on scaling up our response. There had been a fairly clear line on how the international system should respond. Further thought was needed now though on the implications for our bilateral programmes;
    b. noted that a message would shortly issue to country offices and relevant development partners on DFID's intended response, including further details of the 10-year funding commitments announced by the Secretary of State at the Paris OECD/DAC Harmonisation Forum (1-2 March) and increased contribution to IDA. Allocation of funds should be based on performance and need, and would need to be aligned to outcomes in terms of progress towards the MDGs. It would be important to be able to demonstrate how DFID funds were contributing to progress towards MDG targets;
    c. agreed that, in addition to support for the recently agreed 'focus' countries (Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Ethiopia), we needed to ensure flexibility within our programmes and budget to respond to the needs of other 'good performers'. The recently agreed resource allocation round provided this flexibility;
    d. noted that the cross-working between the 2005 unit, Policy and Africa Divisions on 2005 issues provided a useful model for future cross-working.

3. In conclusion, the Board:

    a. thanked Graham and the 2005 team for the papers and additional work;
    b. noted that the Board would consider each paper in turn and appoint a 'lead' for each policy area who would be responsible for coordinating and delivering work within an agreed timeframe, bringing in others as needed.
    c. Paper 1 - 2005 Policy Issues: Key Policy Issues to be Resolved:

    • Scaling up, fast tracking:
      Adrian Wood would lead work on this area as a matter of priority, coordinating with Africa Division. A package of material would be prepared: a revised letter to Bank and others outlining details of the announcement; a core script for country offices; and core script of response to potential criticism of DFID's response to the Sachs' report;
    • Better (global) aid allocation:
      work was already underway, including work on fragile states and the Africa and IDA mid-term review. Related to this, Sam Sharpe was leading the process to review funding and allocation for IDA and EDF; this would need more detailed consideration at a later stage;
    • New shocks facility for Africa:
      Masood Ahmed would work with HMT on this area. The IMF should be asked to outline by September 2005 a proposal on the design and management of a shocks facility;
    • Social protection:
      Adrian Wood would cover this in the work under 3.c.i;
    • Capacity building:
      linking into and responding to the report would become a top priority for Graham Teskey's work programme. This would need to consider deliverables around health in the short term, and broader issues on the implications of capacity building and technical assistance approaches in the longer term. Work would be coordinated with Policy Division's ongoing programme considering the role, importance and support to institutions in developing countries;
    • Infrastructure in Africa:
      Minouche Shafik would lead work in the run-up to the Gleneagles meeting (6-8 July) to coordinate a UK response and liaison with bilateral and multilateral partners, in particular the World Bank, and NEPAD.
    • Facility for trade adjustment:
      the Board agreed that there was no need for an additional funding facility at this stage; any response to loss of revenue in the short term would be dealt with through existing funding mechanisms. The Board would want to review at a later date;
    • Water:
      Adrian Wood would lead on this area as part of Policy Division's current work;
    • Agriculture:
      this was covered under Policy Division's existing work programme;
    • Assistance to African Institutions:
      the Board noted that Tim Williams was responsible for the ongoing work in this area. The Board advised that we needed to be clear about the benefits of engagement;
    • Harmonisation and country ownership:
      the Board noted that a non-committal line had been developed. Suma Chakrabarti would review this, and agree with Policy Division's team the subsequent handling and timing;
      CfA recommendations for which no funds have been set aside
    • Higher education, centres of excellence and new curricula activities:
    • Investment Climate Facility for Africa:
      Policy Division would continue to lead work on this area in coordination with Africa Division, which provided funding. Adrian Wood would need to check the accuracy of the $550M figure;
    • Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund:
      the Board asked Africa Division to advise on DFID's position;
      Cross Whitehall issues
    • agreed the usefulness of an agreed shortlist on which cross-Whitehall work would focus. Against those identified in the paper the Board agreed that No10 should be asked to coordinate different departments work on repatriation. It would want to consider EITI in greater depth at a later stage. The Board advised that DFID's current approach to innovative financing was appropriate; our focus needed to be on the IFF and IFFM, which was a priority for the Department. The Board noted that a Core Script on IFF was in development, and that PD would take over the lead from IDAD in the summer;

    d. Paper 2 - Core Script.

      i. agreed the Script would be adapted to make appropriate for a broader audience and to reflect the minor comments that the Board would provide. The papers would be circulated, with the Whitehall Core Script, to senior staff and to country offices under a cover letter from Masood Ahmed;

    e. Paper 3 - CfA: Outreach and Communication:

      i. advised that three recommendations were broadly fine, although slight redrafting was needed for the first;
      ii. agreed that clarity was needed on DFID's objectives for the Spring meetings and how these should be used. Work should start on this now;
      iii. welcomed the increasing sense of ownership of the 2005 agenda within the Department. Noted that communications agreed above would make clear the role and responsibilities of the different parts of the Department. A '2005 Q&A' mail box managed by the 2005 Unit would be a useful resource for DFID staff;
      iv. agreed that 2005 Unit and Policy Division should continue to participate in Africa Heads video conferences;
      v. noted that the 2005 Unit was required to respond to a lot of urgent briefing requires, for which it relied upon input from other parts of the Department. The Board asked Graham Steggman to provide feedback on the quality of contributory briefing to help the Board play a quality control support role;
      vi. confirmed that the Board members would support the delivery of messages through their engagement with the Department and partners.