DFID Management Board
Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - May 2004
In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement and Service Delivery 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 |
FCO Relationship Action Plan |
Sarah Dunn, Felicity Rose |
To review the action plan on DFID's relationship with FCO |
A and D |
G8 and EU Presidencies |
EU Peter Grant, Nick Dyer, Peter Taylor G8 Graham Stegmann, Graham Teskey, Melindda Simmons Other Ben Green, Dave Fish, Sharon White |
To consider DFID's preparatory plans for the Presidencies, to ensure that these are appropriate, ambitious but realistic and sufficient, and to resolve any obstructions |
A, B and D |
DFID's Diversity Strategy |
Dave Fish, Ian McKendry, Angela Bevan, Kamaljit Kerridge-Poonia |
To consider DFID's comprehensive Diversity Strategy |
A, B, C and D |
Attendees |
Suma Chakrabarti, Bill Griffiths, Mark Lowcock, Masood Ahmed, Nicola Brewer, Minouche Shafik (by VC) |
||
Observing |
DFID Mozambique, DFID Zambia, five further observers in person |
||
DFID/FCO Relationship Action Plan
1. Felicity Rose introduced a review of the relationship between DFID and the FCO. The DFID/FCO Closer Working Action Plan, agreed in the autumn of 2003, had summarised the efforts being made to clarify and improve relations. Six months on, this paper presented examples of both good relations and areas where such experiences had not been so positive, using the Action Plan as a framework for analysis.
2. The review concluded that the picture was generally positive, with an increasing number of examples of effective joint-working and collaborative approaches, both at headquarters and overseas. Overall, the relationship was given an Amber-Green assessment using the "traffic light" rating system, although the relationship was of a patchy nature. The review presented a number of possible factors which might explain improvements in the relationship. But the paper also acknowledged that there were issues where our perceptions or positions differed, generally because of our separate missions. This paper identified three specific current tensions: inequalities in pay and conditions for staff appointed in-country (SAIC); whether and when to co-locate; and security of both staff and documents. The paper had benefited from contributions from across the office and from the FCO, and FCO broadly agreed with the paper's analysis and conclusions.
3. The paper made several recommendations for taking the DFID-FCO relationship forward: awareness-raising among staff at all levels, use of a regular light-touch review mechanism, a cascade of dispute resolution, specific action to tackle the three current irritants, and continuation of the practice of "relationship managers."
4. The paper concluded by asking the Management Board for its views and decisions in 6 key areas: (1) validation of the Amber-Green assessment; (2) next steps; (3) monitoring the relationship; (4) inputs; (5) dispute resolution; and (6) scope of the Action Plan and identification of other issues in the relationship.
5. In discussion the Board made the following points:
a) the FCO's approach to corporate management was substantially different to DFID's, which would mean an inevitable difference on some issues. On the highlighted irritant areas, there were intrinsic differences in our approach to SAIC issues; co-location was, for DFID, in principle desirable but often constrained by cost; whilst DFID was good on staff security, we did need to be better on document security;
b) in addition to the areas highlighted in the paper, the Board would add that relations were also good on Iraq, human resources and security issues; and that difficulties had arisen on EU issues, provision of anti-retroviral treatment to dependents of staff, and the Service Level Agreement.
6. In conclusion the Board agreed the following:
a) thanks to Felicity and Nicola for the paper - any further comments staff wished to contribute should be sent to Felicity. With HM Treasury, this was one of DFID's two main relations within Whitehall. It was worth investing in, but proportionately, and as a constant effort rather than specific initiatives;
b) the Amber-Green assessment was validated;
c) the Action Plan should be jointly signed off by DFID (Mark Lowcock) and FCO (Dickie Stagg). In addition, a few specific objectives should be agreed for this year and might include: effective work by the inter-Departmental Post-Conflict Reconstruction Unit, maintenance of lines agreed on EU, and achieving closer positions on anti-retroviral treatment;
d) in monitoring the relationship, nothing more than systematic annual reviews of the action plan was needed, and that these reviews should be carried out jointly by the two Departments;
e) the level of DFID's input to the relationship was about right - no change was needed;
f) on dispute resolution, Heads of Office should understand that escalating disputes up the line management chain should not be the default action, although they should still feel able to do so if the issue really merited it. The existence of inter-Departmental units, such as the Sudan and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Units, should help to resolve some disputes earlier;
g) the scope of the Action Plan was right, and needed only to capture further differences around some policy areas.
G8 and EU Presidencies
7. Graham Stegmann and Sharon White introduced a paper summarising DFID's progress in setting priorities for the G8 Presidency in 2005, outlining the institutional structure being put in place within DFID to manage our contribution to the UK Presidency, and highlighting a number of issues for Management Board advice: whether the institutional arrangements were right; how to ensure delivery of results; and the role of the Management Board.
8. Similarly, Nick Dyer and Peter Grant introduced a paper summarising DFID's progress in setting priorities for the EU Presidency in 2005. The plans for both process and content were coming together well, and the Presidency agenda would need to be finalised by mid-June. As with all EU issues, there was a long stakeholder list, which included the European Parliament. The paper highlighted a number of issues for Management Board advice: what measures were required to ensure that internal coordination was adequate; whether the MDR event and follow-up, HIV/AIDS and Africa should be proposed as our EU Presidency priorities; and whether the proposed stakeholder communications strategy was appropriate.
9. Both presidencies were being seen not as self-contained but within the context ultimately of achievement of the MDGs, and particularly within DFID's objectives for 2005. Consequently, they would both need to be supported within Regional and Policy Divisions, and resources were already being allocated to achieve this. But there was a growing disjunct between the centre of Government's (No. 10 especially) and DFID/NGO perception of where we wanted to be: whilst DFID and NGOs wanted an ambitious agenda, particularly with regard to trade and financing for development, the Centre was aiming for a more modest set of deliverables.
10. In general conclusion the Board agreed the following:
a) the coincidence of the two presidencies was a once-in-a-generation opportunity and must be maximised - through the redistribution of staff as appropriate within DFID, and by influencing the centre of Government through the building and maintenance of political alliances. The institutional mainstreaming of the follow-up would be vital in fully safeguarding results;
b) an effective external communications strategy would be crucial, and events should be jointly badged where possible, not least to be more time and cost-effective;
c) an overarching paper was being produced which would link both presidencies into the 2005 context and reflect the Board's comments - it would go to the Development Committee and then the Management Board in June. Board members would meet with the Secretary of State at the end of June.
11. In conclusion specifically on the G8 Presidency the Board agreed the following:
a) the proposed direction for institutional arrangements for the G8 Presidency was agreed and should come back to the Board in two or three months. Staffing would need to be time-limited;
b) to ensure delivery, the role of the Africa Commission would be crucial, and would also help bridge the gap with the centre;
c) the Board would have a monthly discussion on the presidencies, based on oral updates for the most part. They would ensure that Directors' objectives reflected the presidencies.
12. In conclusion, specifically on the EU Presidency, the Board agreed the following:
a) the oversight paper should ensure that internal coordination was adequate;
b) the MDR event and follow-up, HIV/AIDS and Africa should be proposed as our EU Presidency priorities, as well as aid effectiveness as an inherited agenda item from previous presidencies - but it would also be important to make the Secretary of State aware of the risks to their delivery, which would include HMG's attention being focussed only on the referendum on the EU Constitution, the rollover into the UK presidency of the financial perspectives discussions, agreement for an early WTO Ministerial;
c) the proposed stakeholder communications strategy was appropriate.
DFID's Diversity Strategy
13. Kamaljit Kerridge-Poonia introduced the draft DFID Diversity Strategy. This was designed to be an overarching document for DFID and provide a framework for action on diversity, as well as a key point of reference.
14. In conclusion the Board agreed that:
a) this set out DFID's mission statement on diversity more clearly than previous documents, set a consistent baseline and linked together different bits of existing work. But it needed to be more action-based, at least over the short-term;
b) the strategic priorities proposed in the paper were agreed. Owners of the six key areas for action should not be members of the General Advisory Group on Diversity (GAGD), and would draw up action plans for their areas, to which the GAGD would contribute;
c) it would be important to emphasise the business case for diversity - we would run DFID in a better way if we valued diversity even more. The diversity agenda would be an integral part of the 'Next 3 Years' approach for DFID. Effective communication of the messages on diversity would be very important;
d) the Board signed up to the introduction paragraph, but did not like the proposed strapline and asked that the strategy end on a more positive note.
