Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
2.
3
4
Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP • Secretary of State ~ Department ~ Department for International Development
22 Whitehallfor International London UKaid from the British people Development SW1 A2EG
Tel: 0207 023 0000
Email: [email protected] Stephen Twigg MP
www.gov.uk/dfid Chair International Development Committee
By email to: [email protected] Our ref: 197793
(( September 2019
I am writing to inform the committee of a new funding contribution of £87 million that DFID is providing to support the response to the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh.
We have just passed the second year since the Rohingya escaped from the atrocities in Myanmar to safety in Bangladesh. The response to their immediate needs was swift and massive. The generosity of the Bangladesh Government and people has been an example to us all. The rapid response by the UN and local and international humanitarian agencies has been exceptional. It is hard to grasp the size of this humanitarian crisis - one of the largest in the world.
The UK has played its part. We have been a leading donor in this response. Our total support from the start of the crisis now reaches £226 million. Through this funding we have helped provide food, healthcare, water, sanitation, care and counselling for sexual violence survivors, and protection for vulnerable groups. The UK has contributed to improving shelters, emergency planning and infrastructure in the camps to reduce the impact of natural disasters, such as the monsoon or cyclones.
The long-term aim is for the voluntary and safe return of the refugees to Myanmar. The Government of Myanmar needs to take solid and constructive steps to create the conditions that will allow this. However, these do not currently exist and there is continued conflict in Rakhine State.
Our new fund ing in Bangladesh has three objectives. First, it will maintain the humanitarian operation, but with increased emphasis on helping the Rohingya lead more fulfilling and meaningful lives. Education and skills are a central part of this, which will help prepare them for their future lives. Second, it will increase investment in the communities of Cox's Bazar to reverse the impact of the refugee presence and improve social cohesion. This includes investing in basic services and livelihoods; and helping protect and rebuild the environment. And th ird, we will strive to find longer-term solutions for the Rohingya people.
/ " \ THEGLOBALGOALS 1"!~ , " For Susta;nable Development
1www.gov.uk/sustainab ledevelopmentgoa Is
The expected results from this new funding are as fo llows:
• Over 75,000 children and adolescents from the refugee and surrounding host community can access improved education.
• Over 450,000 refugees will receive protection, including Rohingya women and girls, who have been subject to sexual violence, and children that have survived abduction and trafficking.
• Over 500,000 medical consultations will be provided through 27 primary health care and mobile clinics, along with the early warning system for disease outbreaks.
• Over 250,000 refugees and 50,000 people from the local community getting clean water and sanitation.
• Covering the basic food needs of 100,000 refugees for a whole year, and containers to protect the food of 150,000 families.
• Cooking gas for over 31,000 families, so helping to stop further forest destruction , which the UK is helping to replant.
• Over £20 million new support to the thousands of already vulnerable Bangladeshi families , who now have nearly a one million refugees living in their neighbourhood.
I hope you take some comfort from knowing that although this crisis remains drawn-out and complex, the UK is doing all it can to help the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya in urgent need of help.
I will place a copy of this letter in the House libraries for other Members to see.
Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP Secretary of State
J
/ n 'i THE GLOBAL GOALS t"~ ai ~ For Sustainable Development
www.gov.uk/sustainabledevelopmentqoals
1
ANNEX: International Development Committee response to questions:
1. Have any beneficiaries been harmed as a result of poor classroom construction by IMC Worldwide?
The safety of children is my highest priority. No children have been harmed by the concerns around building resilience in the case of a significant seismic event.
2. Has the total number of operationally available classrooms in the relevant KP and Punjab regions been increased or decreased by IMC’s performance since commencing work?
The number of operationally available classrooms has increased as a result of IMC’s work within the DFID contract with IMC. An additional 1,715 additional classrooms are now operational as a result of IMC’s work to rehabilitate and construct classrooms. Following the completion of safety checks on designs and any retrofitting work required, this will increase to 7,808 additional classrooms by the end of the programme.
3. What steps are being taken to provide temporary classroom facilities to meet demand in the new 2019 – 2020 school year?
DFID and IMC have worked with Provincial Governments to identify alternative accommodation arrangements for students displaced by the safety concerns. Plans have been made on a school by school basis. Most students (80%) can be housed within existing school buildings. Tents and sundries including fans and whiteboards have been provided by IMC for remaining schools.
3. a) At what cost to DFID?
These alternative arrangements have been provided at no additional cost to DFID or the UK taxpayer.
4. Please outline the precise steps both IMC and the Department are taking to ensure that a) These classrooms are retrofitted at no additional cost to the UK tax payer
IMC have assured us that they are committed to completing all retrofitting work so far undertaken at no cost to the UK tax payer. I have been clear that this and future work will come at no extra cost to the UK taxpayer. All invoices submitted by IMC are scrutinised by the Department to confirm that no retrofitting costs are included prior to payment being made.
b) All future work done by IMC in Pakistan meets required standards
The Department has contracted an independent team of experts to review IMC’s retrofitting plans and designs to ensure these meet the standards of safety and quality we expect.
5. When were concerns first raised about IMC Worldwide’s performance against required standards of classroom construction in KP and Punjab, including on safety? To what level within DFID were these concerns escalated? Please provide a copy of the relevant report(s) and subsequent memos.
Initial concerns about the safety and compliance of construction designs with Pakistan building codes were raised in a draft report by DFID’s Third-Party Verification (TPV) firm in Oct 2016. Following clarification and revisions to the report, the issue was escalated to the Group Head, Basic Services Group, DFID Pakistan in January 2017.
6. What, if anything, did the Department do as a result of the warnings above?
2
In January 2017, following clarification on the TPV report, DFID asked IMC to respond to the issues raised. In February 2017, IMC informed DFID that further internal analysis of designs had been conducted confirming that all schools were safe. DFID asked IMC for more detailed evidence which resulted in IMC carrying out a programme of rectification in 2017 and 2018 on thirteen schools at IMC’s own cost.
7. On what further occasions were concerns raised about IMC’s work or performance or conduct
in relation to the KP and Punjab classroom project? Please state for each such occasion: the date and form of the concern; the level within DFID to which escalation occurred (providing copies of the relevant reports and consequent memos); and a description of the steps taken, if any, to mitigate, remediate, or otherwise respond to the situation.
Further concerns were raised as part of the regular monitoring and verification processes, undertaken by DFID Pakistan and its Third Party Verification contractors. These were discussed directly with IMC as they arose. Three letters were received from members of the public in relation to the programme, which was responded to by DFID’s Public Enquiries Point, and transferred onwards for consideration. Additionally, the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (GoKP) requested a change in the scope of work to include more complex construction at Higher Secondary Schools where specialized builders and individual design approvals were required. The DFID programme team worked with IMC to determine what was feasible in response to GoKP’s request. These factors led to a contract amendment in March 2017, which reduced the numerical targets of the project and the financial limit.
Following IMC’s assertion in January 2017 that all schools were safe, the Department was not fully satisfied that IMC had provided adequate evidence to substantiate this assertion. IMC consistently said that their designs were both compliant with the Building Code of Pakistan and safe and signed off by an approved engineering consultant, registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council before construction.
Given the ongoing DFID concerns, an internal review in June 2018 considered the status of the Programme in detail. The DFID Pakistan Head of Office agreed to these recommendations following consultation with the AsCOT Director that same month. But by November 2018, after a number of further discussions with IMC, the Department was still not fully satisfied. A design review team (UCL) was tasked by DFID to check compliance with the Building Code of Pakistan as well as other international guidelines. The results of this modelling were received on 31 May 2019.
Following receipt of the draft report, Ministers were made aware of the concerns raised in June 2019. DFID took immediate action to suspend construction and initiated plans to resolve the issues raised. Provincial governments were immediately informed and advised that all affected classrooms should no longer be used until required safety checks or rectification work had been completed.
The design review identified design issues that affected 261 schools. DFID asked IMC to identify schools that share elements of the designs in question and a further 1016 schools were identified for analysis. DFID has commissioned UCL to review this analysis and DFID will then decide whether to accept that these designs and classrooms are safe and fit for purpose.
8. For each occasion on which concerns were raised about IMC’s work (including the latest, Jun 2019, safety report) what, if anything, was recorded within reviews or evaluation reports for these projects published on ‘Dev Tracker’? Please attach copies of what was published.
3
The IMC school construction project is one element of activities under DFID’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Education Sector Programme (KESP) and DFID’s Punjab Education Support Programme (PESP II). Annual reviews of each programme were published on Dev Tracker and include assessments of the school construction programme.
9. Why has it taken three years for DFID to take substantive action to secure redress for this situation, allegedly first raised in 2016?
The Department took a number of steps to address the situation (as per detail at Question 7), but there are lessons to be learned. That is why I have initiated internal reviews to ensure that this does not happen again.
10. What is the Department doing to improve the performance of monitoring and proactive evaluation of programme delivery by implementing partners in a) in these two projects; b) in all DFID projects in Pakistan; c) in all IMC Worldwide projects for the Department and d) in all UK aid projects and programmes?
a) DFID Pakistan has assigned additional senior resource for programme oversight. The Group Head meets weekly with IMC’s in-country team leader to receive updates and review progress, in addition to routine meetings between DFID and IMC programme teams. The DFID Head of Office has increased the frequency of (already established) calls with IMC’s Managing Director to receive updates and raise ongoing concerns. DFID officials now report directly to me on progress. I have held regular meetings with the Pakistan and central teams since this issue was brought to Ministerial attention. I have also spoken directly to IMC’s Managing Director instructing IMC to immediately rectify all sub-standard construction works and provide assurance that every school and classroom is fit for purpose and compliant with international standards. This has been at no extra cost to the British taxpayer.
b) DFID Pakistan’s monitoring approach involves regular communication with implementing partners, the Government of Pakistan and other stakeholders, as well as regular field visits to implementation areas, the use of independent third-party monitors and mandatory annual review processes. In addition to standard monitoring approaches, a number of programmes are also subject to independent evaluation. Programmes are selected for evaluation based on a range of criteria, including the strength of the existing evidence base, their value, and their strategic importance to the portfolio. Alongside monitoring and evaluation approaches, the Portfolio Risk Assurance Programme (PRAP) II aims to strengthen DFID Pakistan’s ability to identify, understand, address and manage risks at the programme level. This supports teams by providing independent analysis on the operation of our programmes through independent reviews of partners, cash flow tracking exercises and offering technical advice. A review of the lessons and concerns raised through these evaluations will be undertaken to ensure that our monitoring of partners’ performance is improved.
In addition to our regular monitoring and management of programme level risks, we implement a package of enhanced risk management measures which include:
• Fiduciary Risk Assessments (FRAs) for specific programmes that carry a significant level of risk (Pakistan National Cash Transfers programme and the Financial Inclusion Programme) and programmes which include an element of Financial Aid to the Government of Pakistan;
• Overseas Security and Justice Assistance (OSJA) assessments which provides valuable insights into risks associated with our security and justice programmes; and
• Maintaining and reviewing a list of potential media stories across all programmes.
4
c) and d)
DFID applies a two-tier approach to managing Supply Partner Performance. The first tier is through the programme team in the management of the delivery outcomes of each of our contracts and grants. These activities include (but are not limited to): • Ensuring contract Key Performance Indicators/delivery outcomes are being met and
managing supply partners to deliver; • Ensuring that Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) are in place in the event of low
performance to ensure potential failure is caught and mitigated; • Receiving and approving invoices for payment on behalf of HMG; and • Managing contract/programme risk.
The second tier is through PCD’s Strategic Relationship Management team who manage supply partners on a portfolio basis. This includes (but is not limited to):
• Securing Value for Money through identifying new value with supply partners on a portfolio basis, capitalising on the partner’s market knowledge, capability and expertise and optimising performance to ensure it is consistently good across each contract and grant in their portfolio. SRM therefore provide a complementary layer of performance assessment in general terms on a selection of contracts and grants in the portfolio.
• Reducing Risk through issue resolution/avoidance and providing escalation support in the event of supply partner failure; this includes performance monitoring IMC projects with a dedicated SRM Manager appointed to engage IMC officials and DFID colleagues at a strategic level for all IMC programmes. Performance is facilitated through a scorecard process, complementary to the contract management done by the SRO which evaluates quality and effectiveness of the portfolio. Performance management is undertaken in collaboration with the programme team and Supply Partner through the development of a shared improvement plan designed to address any key issues. Risks and dispute management are monitored, mitigated and managed through proactive engagement.
• Ensuring healthy partner relationships through greater transparency, consistent governance of engagement, adopting a portfolio approach across different funding models, and increased or focused SCS and ministerial engagement.
11. a) What work has DFID undertaken since 2016 to reassess the value for money represented by
this UK Aid expenditure?
Value for money assessments were conducted as part of annual reviews of the KESP and PESP projects and were again assessed during the detailed school construction programme review conducted by the Department in June 2018. Programme costs are reflective of the challenging context in which the programme operates with classrooms and schools being constructed in some of the most remote and inaccessible areas. b) What steps have been taken to build or otherwise provide the remaining 25,000 classrooms
that were deemed necessary when the two projects were first designed? As of 2018, recognising the need to fulfil DFID’s commitment, DFID assessed different options for the construction of classrooms in KP and Punjab Provinces. DFID has entered agreements with KP and Punjab Provincial Education Departments for those governments to construct additional classrooms.
5
There will be no additional costs to the UK taxpayer as these activities will be funded by savings made on the IMC contract. Payments are made to KP and Punjab Provincial Education Departments upon completion of agreed milestones, verified by DFID’s programme team. To assure the quality of construction by provincial governments, DFID’s Third-Party Verification firm has been instructed to conduct quality assessment checks on schools constructed by the government. DFID Pakistan has robust financial controls to assure that funds disbursed are used for intended purposes, including independent audits of government expenditure alongside annual audits by the Accountant General of Pakistan for the school construction work undertaken by the government. 12. Will you invite ICAI and/or the National Audit Office to conduct an independent lessons-
learned review of the conduct of these projects?
The Department is conducting an internal review of our management of the programme, including programme management, overall risk management and lessons learned (including the independent Internal Audit Department). I have been having regular discussions officials, and am confident that the Department is taking robust action. I will continue to provide direct oversight of implementation. Given these processes, I do not plan to invite further reviews at this stage, but will keep this under consideration. Officials will also discuss this issue as part of their regular discussions with the NAO and ICAI, to see whether any further reviews would add value.
