Sections:

• Home
• ABOUT DFID
  • History
  • Mission statement
  • Ministers & organisation
  • Millennium Development Goals
  • How DFID works in the UK
  • Who DFID works with
  • Development activities
  • Performance & expenditure
  • Key achievements
  • Evaluation
  • Diversity & equality
  • Expenditure statistics
• FIGHTING POVERTY
• COUNTRY PROFILES
• NEWSROOM
• PUBLICATIONS
• CASE STUDIES
• PROCUREMENT
• CONSULTATIONS
• POLICY AND RESEARCH
• FUNDING SCHEMES
• RECRUITMENT
• DISCOVERY ZONE
• GET INVOLVED

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

DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings

Management Board Minutes - 25 May 2005

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 25 May 2005

14.30-16.45 Location: 3W14

2005 - G8 & EU Presidencies

1. In opening the meeting, the Board congratulated Nick Dyer, the Secretary of State, and others involved in the recent GAERC of 23-24 May for the outstanding result achieved. Whilst welcoming the observers, Suma Chakrabarti also introduced Atle Leikvoll, who was spending two days shadowing Board members before taking up his appointment as Suma's Norwegian counterpart.

G8 Presidency 

2. Graham Stegmann introduced the session. The EU decision at the GAERC substantially changed the politics of the G8 Presidency. We needed now to clarify the numbers agreed and implications of the decision. With just five weeks to Gleneagles on 6-8 July, pressure was now increasing to on convince others about how potential aid increases could be used - through what channels, for what purpose, how to overcome absorption constraints, how to achieve more sustained dialogue with African leaders etc.

3. The Board had an important role to play through continued dialogue and advocacy with key G8 partners on UK priorities and deliverables for the Presidency. With Ministers, the Board needed to advise the centre of the importance of achieving the best outcome from Gleneagles, rather than seeing consensus as an acceptable outcome in itself. In the longer term, the Board would also want to track follow up with African leaders and implications for global architecture.

4. In discussion, the Board:

a. noted that further thought would be needed on how we managed climate change if it became clear that further progress on the UK's target was not possible;
b. agreed that in light of the GAERC announcement, we needed in the next couple of months to discuss delivery mechanisms with key EU partners to ensure most effective use of the money. . In the case of Africa, an invigorated Africa Partners Forum was a potential means for donors and African finance ministers to work together to agree how best use existing and future flows.

5. In conclusion, the Board:

a. noted that we were in pretty good shape in terms of planning for Gleneagles;
b. noted the importance of achievement against the Africa target, given the limited prospect of further progress on our targets for oda , climate change and trade. Further thought was needed on aid volume, including, for example, Nigeria debt, given that it would be a key element of an agreement on Africa;
c. agreed that the action plan needed to be completed as a matter of priority. It needed to take account of broader 'news' events, e.g. Live 8, the Olympics bid decision, which would also attract large coverage around Gleneagles and affect the UK political context. Masood Ahmed and Suma Chakrabarti would work with 2005 team to finalise the plan;
d. advised that our communication needed to be a bit more quick footed and strategic;
e. noted on relationships with G8 partners that:

i. advocacy efforts with the Japanese needed more focus through personal attention at a senior level. We would continue to push for the Prime Minister to visit;
ii. good progress had been made with the U.S. on aid effectiveness and African commitment. Work was in progress on agreeing principals of aid effectiveness;

f. advised that there was not much scope now to influence the Millennium Summit text, which would be finalised by the end of July;
g. noted that we needed to work on channelling aid increase, but we should maintain flexibility on this with others for now e.g. not get tied into creating new global or sectoral 'funds'.
h. further thought was needed on the Africa Partners Forum (APF) and the role it could play. Graham Stegmann would do a note on this in the medium term;
i. agreed that the Board would continue its focus and advocacy efforts in the run up to Gleneagles. It would also discuss with Ministers an approach for ensuring the optimum outcome from the Presidency.

EU Presidency

5. In introducing the session, Nick Dyer spoke about the successful outcome at the GAERC and potential read across for management of expectations for the G8 Presidency.

6. In addition to an update on planning for the EU Presidency, the paper submitted to the Board outlined the key risks for attention. These included the importance of ensuring a change in mindset from the G8 Presidency to that needed for the EU Presidency. The UK needed to be seen to objectively represent all EU members.

7. In discussion, the Board:

a. noted the paper's good assessment of risks. Management of these was on track overall. Further work might be needed to inform the Department of the implications of holding the EU Presidency and in what ways we would be constrained during this period e.g. it is not Presidential to launch initiatives that are not in line with the EU agenda;
b. advised that many staff were unlikely to be familiar with the key issues and our position on them;

c. noted that the Presidency offered a limited opportunity to advance work on delivery mechanisms with EU partners, following on from the commitment made at the GAERC. This would be an issue in the drafting of the Development Policy text, and could be managed at official level.

8. In conclusion, the Board:

a. thanked Nick Dyer and his team for a very good paper, which included a sound assessment of risks;
b. confirmed that it was happy with the overall preparation;
c. noted that trade would be a bigissue for the EU as well as the G8 Presidency. The team would need to keep this in mind and ensure we were properly prepared to manage this;
d. advised that rather than introduce a mandatory 'EU Presidency' section in submissions (as optioned in EUD's paper), managers should take a proactive approach and include EU implications as and when appropriate. Nick Dyer would brief the SCS on this at the Leadership Conference on 23 June;
e. requested that a summary of key messages and 'hot issues' be circulated to Board members and Directors to filter down to teams;
f. suggested that EUD and TMG also consider the use of webcasts as a means of keeping staff updated on EU Presidency preparation, requirements and key progress;
g. noted that discussions on markers should be put down for agreement on financial mechanisms, Financial Perspective and Development Policy provide an opportunity to put down markers on increasing aid effectiveness.

Communication Strategy

9. Joy Hutcheon introduced the paper, which brought together for the first time the three areas of work - external communication in the UK and internationally; internal communication within DFID; and, communication for development - and work needed against these. The Board's request for the strategy had been very timely, and was warmly welcomed by staff in Knowledge Division. Whitehall Departments were generally giving more thought to strategic communications.

10. The Board were invited to retain their engagement though regular, bi-annual tracking of implementation and monitoring, which would be managed against DDPs and quarterly review. The Government Communication Network would also be invited to conduct a review early 2006. Before inviting the Board to respond to the strategy, Mike Green gave a presentation on the general public's awareness and views on development issues.

11. In discussion, the Board commented on the strategy overall and then against each section:

a. Strategy Overall:

i. advised more thought was needed on linkages with wider HMG issues and, at a later stage, how to share the paper with other Whitehall departments;
ii. noted the need for strong linkages between the approach set out in the strategy and communication around day-to-day issues, e.g. core scripts;

b. External Communications:

i. agreed we should tailor our communications and messages for different groups. However, the key message should be short and crisp, which would work largely for all groups. The messages were currently too complex;
ii. agreed that country offices needed to be more communication literate to be able to contribute to the development awareness agenda, but that we needed to be cautious about investing on a large scale;
iii. noted that consideration of resources should focus not on numbers but on professionalisation of resources;
iv. advised that a project management approach was needed to track outputs (paragraphs 2.10-2.20);

c. Internal Communications:

i. reflected that this was a key area. Line Managers had a critical role in cascading important messages. The Board could help by supporting better categorisation of messages, and encouraging fewer, clearer messages;
ii. noted that inSight was a useful tool, but that it needed to be managed more strategically so that its content was less supply driven. Advised that to increase effectiveness, the Department should be more "street" and populist in its communication on inSight;

d. Communication for Development:

i. noted this was now a core part of business for some country offices;
ii. advised that the covering minute to Ministers should note the number of ongoing activities. EvD should review some of the work.

12. In conclusion, the Board commented on the strategy overall and then against each section:

a. thanked Joy Hutcheon and the team for the excellent paper, which provided a good starting point;
b. confirmed it signed up to the overall strategy and agreed with the three elements identified.

i. requested greater linkage with the wider Government work on communications. This should be included either in the paper or in the covering minute from the Board to Ministers. Further linkage also needed to be made between the short and long term coverage in the paper;
ii. agreed with six-monthly reviews by the Board;
iii. advised further emphasis was needed on impact. The strategy needed to say how we would measure this two years form now;

c. advised the External Communication section was very good overall, and would be agreed once the following changes were made:

i. objective to be simplified;
ii. better account taken of the role of Ministers;
iii. the challenge of how best to spend money should be addressed. Country offices should be engaged in the thinking about how we put this across to external audiences.

d. agreed the Internal Communication section with the following revisions:

i. the phone survey data would not be included since it was based on too small a sample to be credible;
ii. reference would be included to the important role of line managers in ensuring effective internal communications. The Internal Communications Group would advise the Board on the best means for incentivising managers to maintain a proactive approach;

e. agreed the Communications for Development section with the following comments:

i. welcomed the emphasis of working with the World Bank;
ii. noted that we should be looking in-country to work with FCO;
iii. noted that some country offices were not clear what they should be doing in this area. Joy Hutcheon would give some thought to this;
iv. thanked Sarah Saxton for her work producing the summary of "Killer Facts", which were a very useful resource for Ministers and senior management. The Facts were currently very MDG-based, which meant some key successes were not captured. They needed to draw from broader material, e.g. HMT's papers on what makes aid effective, the World Development Report, Annual Reports from the World Bank and DFID. The Facts should be kept 'live' through regular updating. Sarah Saxton should continue to coordinate this work, with support from Regional Cabinets and country offices.