Business Case and Intervention Summary
Intervention Summary
Title: Dialogue between countries to improve effectiveness of development cooperation
What support will the UK provide?
The UK will provide up to £500,000 over 2 years (£300k in FY 2013/14, and £200k in FY 2014/15) to
stimulate dialogue and facilitate partnerships between The Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) donors, Emerging Powers (EPs), and Recipient Countries.
The Fund will support interventions and events which will:
Improve understanding of EP influence and policies, and foster EP participation in
dialogue, on global public goods challenges (eg. trade, conflict, climate change, health,
food security and financial stability) that impact on sustainable development.

Encourage EPs and Low Income Countries (LICs) participation in important global
development processes (eg. Global Partnership for Effective Development, Financing for
Development and post-2015).

Bring LICs, EPs and OECD donors together for dialogue on development cooperation,
including South-South and Triangular cooperation, and humanitarian assistance.
In practice this means contributing to costs of events, or funding for LIC participants who could not
otherwise attend events.
Why is UK support required?
The effectiveness of development interventions increasingly depends on OECD Donors, EPs, and LICs
coming together on global public goods challenges that impact on sustainable development and growth
in poor countries, as well as to discuss how we work jointly on humanitarian assistance and
development cooperation to improve coordination and avoid duplication of activities.
As a leading development actor, and in the wider context of HMG’s Emerging Powers Initiative1 (EPI),
DFID has a strong interest in ensuring that this dialogue takes place and is constructive.
This approach is not new to DFID, rather pulling together a number of smaller interventions under one
overarching fund to build on existing work through the Global Development Partnerships Programme.
1
The EPI is a cross-government strategy aimed at creating much deeper relationships with EPs, in
pursuit of security and prosperity objectives
1
What are the expected results?
The Fund will increase opportunities for dialogue on global public goods and development cooperation
between recipient countries, EPs and OECD donors, facilitating better understanding of the impact of
EP policies on poor countries, knowledge sharing and better coordinated development assistance. This
will increase the likelihood of an improved international commitment to, and effective implementation
of, policies and programmes of development cooperation that reflect the priorities of poor countries.
While evidence that this intervention will achieve the desired impact will be limited (it is not possible to
accurately measure the impact of the Fund due to the difficulty in establishing attribution and because
of the inherently complex nature of the partnerships and outcomes involved), we consider postdialogue reporting and evaluation will inform future discussions in the shorter term, and influence policy
in the longer term.
2
Business Case
Strategic Case
A. Context and need for a DFID intervention
CONTEXT
As the economies of Emerging Powers (EPs) - countries such as China, Brazil, India and South
Africa - grow, so too does their influence on world affairs. At the global level EPs are now key players
on global public goods challenges that impact on sustainable development (eg. trade, climate
change, health, food security and financial stability). The size and future growth of their economies
means their impact on poor countries will continue to grow – through trade and investment as well as
aid.
Crucially, having achieved strong growth in recent years and having succeeded in bringing so many
of their own people out of poverty, EPs are well-placed to share their experience with those countries
that are still developing. EP development cooperation, trade and investment in countries poorer
countries (often called “South-South Cooperation” - SSC) is significant and growing (see Table 1).
Table 1: Comparison of BRIC characteristics as donors
China
India
Brazil
Aid (USD 1,400-25,000
1,420
356
mn)
South Africa
433
0.04 – 0.79
Grants, credit
lines, interest
free loans and
concessional loans
Projects, debt
cancellation and
stipends
0.13
Credits, concessional
loans and grants
0.03
ND
0.18
Grants and loans
Projects, scholar-ships,
debt cancellation,
and humanitarian
assistance
Co-financed
projects and
technical
assistance
Co-financed
projects and
technical
assistance
Sectors
Infrastructure,
productive sectors,
health, and
prestige projects
Agriculture,
infrastructure and
transport
Agriculture,
education and
health
Country
focus
Latin America,
Immediate
Asia and Africa (44 neighbourhood and
percent)
Africa
Democratisation,
post-conflict
resolution and
humanitarian
assistance
Africa
%/GNI
Form
Modality
Latin America
and 15 African
countries
(Lusophone in
particular)
Source: ‘Kragelund P.- The potential role of non-traditional donor’s aid in Africa’ ICTSD, 2010.
As the volume of EP development cooperation increases, it will be important to reduce the risk of
fragmentation and lack of coordination which undermines the positive impact development
3
assistance can have on reducing poverty. To maximize the impact of global development efforts we
need to find ways to understand better EPs policies on international development and assistance.
One vehicle for this is triangular cooperation where an established OECD donor works with an EP on
a development intervention in a third, lower-income country.
UK’s Emerging Powers objectives:
DFID is working within the wider context of HMG’s cross-government Emerging Powers Initiative
(EPI), established in May 2010, aimed at creating much deeper relationships with the emerging
powers in pursuit of long term security and prosperity. Global Partnerships Department’s Emerging
Powers work has the following objectives:
i) To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of development assistance. By sharing lessons we can
make EP and UK aid smarter at reducing poverty. UK aid should reflect lessons from EPs’ recent
development experience and can catalyse the uptake of relevant lessons in poorer countries.
ii) To encourage investment by EPs in poorer countries and regions. Done well, in response to local
and regional priorities, EP investment can stimulate growth and drive development.
iii) To encourage EPs to play a strong and constructive role in responding to global challenges such
as trade, conflict, climate change, health, food security and financial stability. Collaboration on global
issues can improve development prospects in poorer countries.
iv) To work with EPs to promote a better, more effective international and multilateral system.
Cooperating with EPs will be important in multilateral reform, G20 action, the Global Partnership, and
shaping the post-MDG framework.
In the next few years, our EP engagement will be particularly important for:





Generating support for for the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel report and
constructively influencing the intergovernmental process around the post-2015 development
agenda;
Establishing the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) as
a key forum for dialogue on improving development effectiveness;
Maintaining global attention on Food Security and Nutrition;
Advancing our ambitious agenda on Girls and Women;
Laying the ground for Financing for Development discussions.
“Middle Powers” engagement
We are also increasingly exploring the development of partnerships with countries – recently termed
“middle powers” by the FCO - such as Colombia (where we have had a DFID staff member for just
over a year), Indonesia (where we have just deployed a DFID staff member), UAE, Turkey, and
Mexico. The voices of these countries in key international settings (e.g. UN General Assembly; G20;
Global Partnership for Economic Development) would add real value to debates of concern to DFID.
The Global Development Partnerships Programme (GDPP)
Approved in 2010, the GDPP aims to bring greater coherence to DFID’s relations with Emerging
Powers and new donors (e.g. Gulf States) in order to increase their impact on poverty reduction,
particularly in low income countries. The GDPP supports proposals which are designed to:

Strengthen the impact of global development policies – e.g. shaping global development
policy through the G20, global climate change through the UNFCCC, and global trade policy
through the WTO.
4

Build knowledge or promote innovative practices for the benefit of low income countries.
A large proportion of GDPP funding is channelled through EP country offices for large programmes in
partnership with the respective EPs. A reserve is held in Global Partnerships Department to fund
activities that sit outside of our partnership work and address our objectives across the EPs.
NEED FOR DFID INTERVENTION:
It is good that more actors are involved in development, but the world is moving from aid toward
increasing dialogue and cooperation. EPs are critical to these processes. Action is needed to bring
countries together on global public good challenges that impact on sustainable development, as well
as to discuss how we work jointly on humanitarian assistance and development cooperation.
To date, there has been little international discussion on the best way to use triangular cooperation.
Dialogue between the UK (and other established OECD donors), EPs and Recipient Countries will
deepen mutual understanding of development policies and strategies and their impact on growth and
poverty reduction in poor countries. It will help to improve the combined impact of all development
assistance, and triangular cooperation in particular, in developing countries.
As a leading development actor, DFID can help facilitate, encourage and build these conversations.
With the GDPP reserve, we have previously funded (during 2013) ad hoc, low cost initiatives
facilitating dialogue between recipient countries, EPs and OECD donors in global dialogue, including:
 £100,000 to enable 20 developing (mainly LIC) countries to participate in the June UN
Development Cooperation Forum; and
 £2,000 to fund Cambodian participation at an OECD Policy Dialogue of Triangular
Cooperation (to “build consensus on the necessary elements for triangular cooperation and
agree on policy recommendations and actions by the international community to promote
more and better triangular cooperation”), which included delegates from China.
 A £30,000 contribution to the October Wilton Park Conference bringing stakeholders and EPs
together for dialogue on humanitarian assistance. We are also exploring a further proposal
from Wilton Park for a £60,000-£75,000 contribution to a conference on Financing for
Development during 2014.
 We are also considering a contribution to the 2014 United Nations Development Cooperation
Forum (DCF) of £150,000 in FY 13/14 towards analytical work on (i) trends in global
development cooperation flows, and (ii) trends in global accountability in Development
Cooperation.
It is expected that DFID will continue be asked to consider proposals that seek to facilitate OECD, EP
and Recipient Country participation in important development processes (including dialogue on
global public goods) and development cooperation dialogue. As we develop our collaboration with
“middle powers”, we will also consider how their voices can have maximum impact in key
international settings.
A more proportionate and efficient approach to such requests is to approve this over-arching
business case to set up a Fund from the GDPP Reserve for ad hoc interventions that meet at least
one of 3 specific criteria.
Criteria: the Fund would support interventions and events which will:


Improve understanding of EP and “middle power” policies, and foster EP and “middle
power” participation in dialogue on global challenges – e.g. trade, conflict, climate
change, health, food security and financial stability, and/or
Encourage EP, “middle power” and LIC participation in important global development
5
processes such as the UN DCF, the Global Partnership for Effective Development
Cooperation, and debates/forums on the post-2015 development financing agenda, and/or

Bring LICs, EPs, “middle powers” and OECD donors together for dialogue on
development cooperation, including South-South, triangular cooperation and humanitarian
assistance.
In practice this means contributing to costs of events (such as the Wilton Park Conference), or
funding for LIC participants who would not otherwise attend events (such as Cambodian participation
at the OECD dialogue on Triangular Cooperation).
B. Impact and Outcome that we expect to achieve
The expected impact: Through better understanding of the impact of EPs policies on poor countries,
sharing knowledge and better coordinating development assistance, this will increase the likelihood
of improved international commitment to and coordination of pro-poor policies that reflect the
priorities of poor countries.
The expected outcome: Increased opportunities for dialogue on global public goods and development
cooperation between OECD donors, EPs and recipient countries.
6
Appraisal Case
A. What are the feasible options that address the need set out in the Strategic case?
Option 1. Create an umbrella fund to support interventions that meet at least one of the 3 criteria set
out in the strategic case.
Strengths and Benefits: This approach could increase the likelihood of achieving the expected
outcome through a more efficient and strategic approach to funding requests, while upholding the
underlying principles of our EP work. Previously, when Global Partnerships Department has provided
funding for such interventions, an approved business case and ARIES project has been required for
each, individual intervention on an ad hoc basis. With the value of each intervention falling between
£2,000 - £100,000, a more proportionate and efficient approach is to approve this over-arching
business case to set up a Fund from the GDPP Reserve for ad hoc interventions that meet at least
one of the 3 specific criteria.
Weaknesses: Setting criteria may affect the degree of flexibility for considering such ad-hoc
interventions.
Option2. Do nothing more than DFID is already doing
Strengths and benefits: Managing ad hoc interventions individually allows some degree of flexibility
by considering each individual intervention’s objectives which may go beyond pre-agreed criteria.
Weaknesses: This approach does not provide objective criteria to judge overall success/impact of
small scale GDPP funded interventions. This approach is also likely to result in a disproportionate
amount of staff time is spent on low value interventions, and does not represent value for money.
B. Assessing the strength of the evidence base for each feasible option including delivery
routes
Option
1
2
3
Evidence rating
Limited
Limited
Add rows as necessary
Options 1 and 2: The effectiveness of development interventions increasingly depends on OECD
Donors, EPs, and LICs coming together on global challenges that impact on sustainable development
and growth in poor countries, as well as to discuss how we work jointly on humanitarian assistance
and development cooperation to improve coordination and avoid duplication of activities. As a leading
development actor, and in the wider context of HMG’s Emerging Powers Initiative (EPI), DFID has a
strong interest in ensuring that this dialogue takes place and is constructive.
The approach set out at Option 1 is not new to DFID, rather pulling together a number of smaller
interventions under one overarching fund to build on existing work (Option 2) through the Global
Development Partnerships Programme. While evidence that this intervention will achieve the desired
impact will be limited (it is not possible to accurately measure the impact of the Fund due to the
difficulty in establishing attribution and because of the inherently complex nature of the partmerships
and outcomes involved), we consider post-dialogue reporting and evaluation will inform future
discussions in the shorter term, and influence policy in the longer term.
C. For each feasible option, what is the assessment of local capacity? Is the intervention likely
7
to strengthen capacity in a durable manner?
The programme will not deliver a direct impact on LIC capacity. In the medium term, sharing
knowledge should strengthen capacity of the donor community to deliver more effective and
sustainable development assistance, strengthening capacity of LICs in the long term.
D. What is the likely impact (positive and negative) on climate change and environment for
each feasible option?
Categorise as A, high potential risk / opportunity; B, medium / manageable potential risk / opportunity;
C, low / no risk / opportunity; or D, core contribution to a multilateral organisation.
Option
1
2
3
Climate change and environment risks Climate
change
and
environment
and impacts, Category (A, B, C, D)
opportunities, Category (A, B, C, D)
C
C
C
C
Add rows as necessary
E. If any, what are the likely major impacts on social development?
The programme will not deliver direct impacts on social development. In the long term, through better
understanding of the impact of EPs policies on poor countries, sharing knowledge and better
coordinating development assistance, this will increase the likelihood of maximising the impact of
development investments on poor people’s lives.
F. For fragile and conflict affected countries, what are the likely major impacts on conflict and
fragility, if any?
The programme will not deliver direct impacts on conflict and fragility. In the long term, dialogue on a
coordinated approach could contribute to a reduction in conflict and fragility.
G. What are the costs and benefits of each feasible option? Identify the preferred option.
Option 1.
Costs: Potential for more calls on the Fund than would normally come to GPD.
Benefits: More proportionate and efficient use of staff resources by developing and approving one
over-arching business case, and setting up one over-arching project on ARIES.
Option 2. Do nothing more than DFID is already doing:
Costs: Staff resources spent on developing and approving multiple business cases, and setting up
multiple projects on ARIES.
Benefits: Will not create an expectation of funding from a ready-made fund (eg. where other funding
8
streams may be more appropriate).
H. Theory of Change for Preferred Option
The Problem identified in the strategic case is that as the volume of EP development cooperation
increases, so does the risk of fragmentation and lack of coordination between development actors,
which undermines the positive impact development assistance can have on reducing poverty.
The desired impact for the programme is that through better understanding of the impact of EPs
policies on poor countries, sharing knowledge and better coordinating development assistance, this
will increase the likelihood of improved international commitment to and coordination of pro-poor
policies (through global processes and trilateral engagement) that reflect the priorities of poor
countries.
To contribute to this impact, DFID will create an overarching fund to build on existing work to facilitate
OECD Donors, EPs, and LICs coming together through the GDPP. This approach could increase the
likelihood of achieving the desired impact through a more efficient and strategic approach to ad hoc
funding requests – upholding the underlying principles of our EP work by following one set of criteria
for ad hoc funding applications to the GDPP.
The key assumption is that EPs and Recipient Countries recognise the value of, and are willing to
enter into three-way dialogue on development cooperation and global challenges with UK and other
OECD donors. Since 2011, and establishment of a new programme to manage the development
relationships with Emerging Power countries more effectively, DFID’s development partnerships with
China, Brazil, India and South Africa have strengthened – increasing trilateral engagement through
our GDPP-funded projects has encouraged better link-up with these countries on international
processes (particularly post-2015 and GPEDC) and increases the likelihood of EP engagement with
other OECD donors.
Evidence that this intervention will achieve the desired impact is limited - it is not possible to
accurately measure the impact of the Fund due to the difficulty in establishing attribution and because
of the inherently complex nature of the partnerships and outcomes involved. We can, however,
measure the success of the Fund at the outcome level – e.g. by seeing an increase in opportunities
for dialogue on global public goods and development cooperation between OECD donors, EPs and
recipient countries.
I. What measures can be used to monitor Value for Money for the intervention?
In addition to staff resources, each proposal will be assessed for value for money (VFM) including
the proportion of management fees (no more than 15%) and application of DFID travel rules prior to
approval of funding. Readout from discussions, along with DFID and officials’ feedback on dialogue
will be used by DFID to best quantify the success and value for money on completion of each
intervention.
J. Summary Value for Money Statement for the preferred option
Preferred Option 1 - Putting a monetary value on and assessing the value for money of policy work
such as this is difficult, as its impact will be long-term. In the short-term, staff time spent managing
interventions using VFM principles, along with readout from discussions, and with DFID and officials’
feedback on dialogue will be used by DFID to best quantify the overall success and value for money of
this fund.
9
Commercial Case
Delivery through a third party entity (multilateral organisation; civil society
organisation or support to government)
A. Why is the proposed funding mechanism/form of arrangement the right one for this
intervention, with this development partner?
Direct one-off payments (under separate Accountable Grant agreements) to reimburse agreed costs
will ensure the lowest administrative cost to DFID.
B. What assurance has been obtained on capability and capacity to deliver?
In practice, we will be contributing to agreed costs for events run by international organisations such
as UNDCF and OECD, or organisations that have received DFID funds in the past (such as Wilton
Park and Chatham House). Where appropriate, we will seek evidence of capability and capacity to
deliver from reviews of previous DFID-funded programmes/projects.
By issuing funds under Accountable Grants, there will be scope to both set out direct procurement
principles and deliverables that will apply to the DFID Grants.
C. Is there an opportunity to negotiate on anticipated costs?
For each proposal, a view will be taken on elements of the budget that are appropriate for a
contribution against criteria set out in this business case.
Financial Case
A. Who are the recipients of all proposed payments?
Funds will be received by the organisation submitting the funding request. Costs will be broken down to
include participant costs, and related administration and overhead costs
B. What are the costs to be incurred directly by DFID?
Direct costs to DFID will be up-to £500,000 over 2 years (£300k in FY 2013/14, £200k per annum in FY
2014/15)
C. What are the costs to be incurred by third party organisations?
N/A
D. Does the project involve financial aid to governments? If so, please define the arrangements
in detail.
N/A
10
E. Is the required funding available through current resource allocation or via a bid from
contingency? Will it be funded through capital/programme/admin?
Required funding is available through current resource allocation (GDPP Programme funds).
F. What is the profile of estimated costs? How will you work to ensure accurate forecasting?
In practice, the fund would broadly cover contributions to up-to 4 conferences, plus costs for a number
of individual participants at appropriate events per annum.
For each individual intervention, organisations will provide a detailed breakdown of forecast costs prior
to funding approval, and funds will be paid in arrears on receipt of a detailed breakdown of actual
expenditure. This approach will ensure accurate forecasting.
G. What is the assessment of financial risk and fraud?
The assessment of financial risk and fraud is low
Organisations will be advised of DFID’s travel policy, and will confirm costs for reimbursement prior to
expenditure. Money will be reimbursed in arrears.
Mitigating measures:
Organisations will be informed of DFID’s zero tolerance approach to corruption and fraud. Flight costs
and subsistence rates will be agreed prior to expenditure. Requests for funds will be scrutinised by the
by the GPD project manager – ensuring expenditure matches agreed costs - prior to receipting on
Aries.
H. How will expenditure be monitored, reported and accounted for?
Expenditure will be accounted for on receipt of invoice/request for funds from organisations. As one-off
payments will be the norm, this will not usually require on-going monitoring or reporting.
I. Are there any accounting considerations arising from the project?
N/A
11
Management Case
A. What are the Management Arrangements for implementing the intervention?
A summary note (including cost-benefits assessment) for each individual intervention will be prepared
by the Emerging Powers Team Project manager for GPD approval at the appropriate level of delegated
authority, on the basis of criteria set out in this Business Case.
The Emerging Powers Team Project Manager will liaise with organisations to agree costs for
reimbursement prior to expenditure. A detailed breakdown of agreed expenditure will form part of the
project documentation of the Accountable Grant Agreement (or Exchange of Letters). Organisations
will provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure with requests for reimbursement along with narrative
detailing the outcomes of the intervention.
B. What are the risks and how these will be managed?
Risk
Difficulties engaging
Emerging Powers
Effect
Probability
Mitigation
Outcome not Low/Moderate Developing good relationships with
achieved
Emerging Powers through DFID
country offices in Brazil, India, China
and South Africa, means DFID is well
placed to help facilitate EP
engagement.
Low Income Countries do not Difficulty in
Low/Moderate Through DFID country offices, we
make a significant contribution achieving
have capacity to encourage LIC
outcome.
participation. DFID officials attending
dialogues will encourage LICs to
make their voices heard..
Lack of suitable
Outcome not Low
As a leading donor, DFID is
proposals/requests for funds
achieved
approached both to attend and
contribute to events. Where
appropriate, we can take initiative to
encourage EP engagement and
facilitate LIC participation.
Poor quality proposals
Difficulty in
Low/Moderate DFID can help organisations develop
achieving
promising ideas into better quality
outcome.
proposals.
Costs are tangible, but the
benefits are intangible
Using the fund when other
funding sources are more
appropriate.
Difficulty in
measuring
outcome
Difficulty in
achieving
outcome
Moderate/High Post-dialogue reporting and
evaluation on individual interventions
will provide an indication of outcome.
Low
Clear criteria for approving proposals
for the Fund from the outset.
C. What conditions apply (for financial aid only)?
N/A
12
D. How will progress and results be monitored, measured and evaluated?
Post dialogue papers and reports will evaluate progress towards expected Outcome. DFID officials
participating in the dialogue will be best placed to evaluate the outcome/impact of dialogues.
13