FEBRUARY 2006: UK GOVERNMENT NEWS REPORTJICA UK OFFICE
Sources:- Department for International Development (DFID) website: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/- Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website: http://www.fco.gov.uk/- HM Treasury website: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/- 10 Downing Street website (PM’s speeches): http://www.number-10.gov.uk/
SPEECHES
28 February 2006
Launch of DFID Southern Africa Regional Plan
Minouche Shafik, Director General Regional Programmes, DFID
The Plan describes exactly what we plan to achieve and who we want to work with to achieve
it. We need a strong partnership with South Africa, particularly on its own plans fordevelopment in the region. We want to work with regional institutions, including SADC, andhelp to build the capacity that is needed to take this forward. We are firmly behind the African
Union (AU)/New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NePAD) programme. And we want toensure that what we do is aligned with priorities set by AU-NePAD. We plan to give support ina limited number of areas, where we think the UK could make a distinctive contribution. They
include: growth, jobs and equity; resilient livelihoods; peace and security.
Southern Africa Regional Plan:
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/southern-africa-regional-plan.pdf
23 February 2006
Development Beyond Aid
Hilary Benn, 5th White Paper Speech, Chatham House/BOND
The challenge of making poverty history is becoming more and more complicated because welive in an increasingly interconnected world. One reason for this is that national borders havebecome ever more porous to a host of different flows over the past few decades – people,
ideas, capital, trade, carbon emissions and so on. The symptoms of today’s problems will
become the catalysts and the causes of tomorrow’s crises. It is already clear that we will haveto deal with a number of global trends over the next ten to twenty years - some of them positiveand some of them negative - that represent an even greater acceleration of the pace of change.
Here is a list of some of them:
Climate change is happening faster than any of us anticipated even five years ago.
Fast depletion of natural resources including soil, oil, forestry, fisheries and water
Ageing populations in developed nations and jobless teenagers elsewhere
Rapid urbanization with more than half the global population living in cities or towns
Infectious diseases and rising HIV infection
Poor governance and inadequate accountability which can trigger state failure
The multilateral system under serious examination at the very time when we need it
A clash not of civilisations but within them - different value systems talking past each other
Endemic short-termism in politics and economics that under-values the future relative tothe present
All these challenges seem to be linked to the shift from a world organised primarily around
independence to one increasingly based on interdependence. This has five main features:
1. More interdependence can mean more safety. e.g. the European Union
2. Greater interdependence can also mean more risk e.g. currency crashes
3. Global interdependence requires global management of its consequences.
4. This successful management is partly be about individual behaviour and values
5. Interdependence means complexity and uncertainty, as well as opportunity.
This is the context. What are we going to do? The truth is, aid – in itself - is not enough. It’s notjust about money; other things we do matter as well, and we have to tell the whole story about
what makes development possible. Trade is a perfect example of that. The argument about
fairer trade used only to be made by development ministers. Nowadays trade ministers make

that argument – something that would have been impossible to imagine two or three decadesago. At the launch of the Commission for Africa report, the Prime Minister committed the wholeof the UK Government to implementing its recommendations. These have gone far beyond
DFID’s reach, and are about more than money.
I want to look in more detail at two of the above challenges:
Let me start with climate change. Climate change is increasing the intensity and severity ofnatural disasters. Climate change itself will have gradual but just as devastating effects.
Climate change is not, primarily, the fault of developing countries. So what should we do? I
think there are four key things we need to do:
1. We need to keep publicising the science - we have much better predictive models now
2. We need to work for a global solution – this involves both scientists and politicians. It also
requires that developing countries have the capacity to negotiate.
3. We need to reduce the volume of carbon emissions through the greater use of cleaner
technology including making sure developing countries are able to take advantage ofcleaner and more efficient technologies.
4. We need to help developing countries cope with, and adapt to, the impact of the climatechange that we already know will happen, and make sure that they can plan to minimise
its future impact.
All these initiatives come at a huge price – far beyond what our aid can help with. And that’s
why Nick Stern’s (Chief Economist, Treasury) Review – which is due to report in October - istaking a serious look at the economics of climate change, to work out the best course of action
and how all these things will be paid for.
The second major issue we have to address is the global causes of bad governance. One of
the reasons this happens is that rich countries and we, their consumers, are willing to pay agreat deal of money for valuable commodities. This provides an opportunity for political elites
in some countries to enrich themselves, and the ease with which money can now move aroundthe world makes it easier to steal. Our support to the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative and the Kimberley process will improve the transparency of revenue flows. The new
EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade regulation will help to tackle illegal
logging. UK government departments are working closely together to fight international
corruption. We worked very hard to get the UN Convention Against Corruption agreed, wereformed our own legal systems and we ratified it two weeks ago. We need to do more to
recover stolen assets – this is a long and complex legal process.
Progress demands work across government; and across many governments. These
challenges can’t be tackled by any one department, and any one state; they are by their nature
global. What we are grappling with here are the consequences of our interdependence ashuman beings – the most complex area of all.
16 February 2006
Meeting Our Promises: Basic services for everyone, everywhere
Hilary Benn, 4th White Paper Speech, UNISON, London
In Britain when a woman decides to have a child, it is almost always a joyous occasion. In thedeveloping world, 130 million women can’t get any family planning, so they don’t have any
choice in deciding if and when to have children. In the developing world, pregnancy andchildbirth kill a woman every minute. For children the world they come into is a hard one.
Politics achieved change in the UK in the past to provide a better life based not on handouts,
not on charity, but on the collective provision of human rights. As developing countries
progress, they too will turn their minds to exactly the same questions. How can they - throughan effective state - meet their responsibility to provide social security and access to basic
services for all our citizens? How are they going to be able to do this? So how do we help
make this happen? The truth is if poor countries are to meet the MDGs, they need to plan forthe long-term, and they need to know they can rely on long-term support from donors.
Lack of clean water is the number one killer of children in the world but I made a speech aboutthat last week. Let’s start with education. We know it is fundamental to the development of any

society. What we need now, in all countries where primary age children are not yet in school,are 10 year plans to get them into school. Plans for classrooms, books, toilets, for the training
and employing of the teachers, and plans to abolish fees that prevent children from evergetting through the school gate. And we, as donors, should announce that we will help draw up
these plans and then support their implementation. The UK stands ready to do both.
Secondly, I want to turn to health. Much progress is being made but we also need to do much
more to help countries ensure that poor people get the healthcare they need. This has toinclude supporting governments to abolish fees for basic services, where they wish to do so,
as we promised at Gleneagles. Of course, it is up to developing countries to make the choice.
Different countries take different approaches but charging people for basic health care at the
point of delivery is first of all unfair, and doesn’t help improve their health. User fees are citedby poor people as the greatest barrier they face in getting health care. Guaranteeing universal
access to free basic health services will save lives and help reduce the burden of disease andillness. It’s the right thing to do. So how do we get on and do more of this?
Countries need the staff – they need to be given the right incentives to stay.
Countries need the right vaccines and drugs, at the right price..
Countries – and their peoples – need to monitor progress, holding themselves and donors
to account. We also need to be held to account globally. In education we have the annual
UNESCO Global Monitoring Report. What do you think would work for health?
Countries need the money to do all this. Estimates of the additional aid needed to reachthe health MDGs are between $20-25 billion a year, including expanding services toachieve universal access to AIDS treatment. What that means within countries, is that theyneed to move from spending $5-10 per person a year, to the $35-40 recommended by the
WHO to get a good quality service. So, we need 10 year national plans to achieve thehealth MDGs, and for these plans and national priorities to be backed by donor support,
including support through global funds.
The World Bank has pointed out the Millennium Development Goals for health could beachieved if we ensured people had universal access to: Family planning; A trained midwife
and safe delivery; Breast-feeding; Childhood vaccination; Mosquito nets; Antibiotics forpneumonia; Effective anti-malarial, TB and AIDS drugs; Better access to health information,and of course Clean water. Much of this list is very modest. We know what to do, we need to
do it, and we need to do much more of it.
The third issue I want to address is social security. Because providing security for poor people- from the cradle to the grave - will give them a chance to get a foot on the ladder of opportunity.
In the UK we now see public services and social security, as a right. Social security – throughfood or cash - can stop a farmer selling precious assets when she suffers a crisis. In South
Africa, pensions have increased the income of the poorest 5% of the population by 50%, andin Brazil, they have doubled the incomes of this group. And old age pensions don’t just benefit
older people, but also the children living with them, who are healthier – and instead of stunted
from malnutrition they are an inch or more taller. And we have learnt it doesn’t cost quite asmuch as you might think.
14 February 2006
Africa: A new agenda
Jack Straw, Murtala Muhammed lecture, Abuja, Nigeria
Nigeria and Africa as a whole have had a turbulent time in the last three decades. Much
progress has been made; many large challenges remain. These are the ten major challenges
Africa has to confront successfully if the continent is to succeed over the coming decade.
First, three "traditional" issues:
1. Development
2. Governance3. Conflict
Then new issues which will have greater prominence in Africa in the coming decade:4. Terrorism - Nowhere in the world is immune from terrorism but Africa is at particular risk.
5. Migration - Well-managed migration is good for everyone; illegal immigration is not.

6.

Crime and drugs - A growing proportion of the most dangerous (Class A) drugs on UK
streets now come in from West Africa.
7. Energy security - This is globally becoming increasingly important. Much of Africa’s
potential reserves have not yet been explored or identified.
8. Environment - Climate change and ecological degradation are likely to have particularly
stark effects in Africa, because most Africans rely on agriculture, and because so many
Africans still live constantly on the edge of total impoverishment, so small changes in thenatural environment can have devastating effects.
9. Islam - Engaging with Islam is the next big issue. One of the biggest challenges for all of
us is to ensure that the Christian and the Islamic worlds become partners in the 21st
century rather than at loggerheads. Nowhere is this more important than in Africa.
10. China - The last year or so has seen a striking increase in China's visibility andengagement in Africa. We regard China's engagement in Africa as good news and want
China to play a full role on the international scene. What matters is the manner of China's
engagement in Africa. We want that engagement to support the agenda which President
Obasanjo and the African Union have set out for this continent: support for democratic
and accountable governance, for transparent business processes, for economic growthand effective poverty reduction, for human rights and the rule of law. We will work closelywith China to that end.
These challenges have two things in common. First, that most of them cannot be addressed inisolation: in order successfully to address one we need to address the others too. And second,that none of them can be successfully tackled without building successful African states:
prosperous, democratic, stable, well-led.
14 February 2006
The people of Darfur want peace
Jack Straw, Darfur Peace Talks, Abuja, Nigeria
We are committed to a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Sudan, which respects humanrights and the rule of law; which enables its people to share equally in the nation's future
prosperity, and which is an active and constructive member of the international community.
This can only be achieved if two conditions are met:
1. The successful and full implementation of the North/South Comprehensive Peace
Agreement for Sudan, signed last year
2. A settlement of the crisis in Darfur.
The UK welcomes the steps made towards peace in previous rounds of these talks. We
welcome in particular the Humanitarian and Security Protocol, which provides a basis for
improving security on the ground in Darfur; and the Declaration of Principles, which provides aframework for an eventual political agreement on Darfur's future. But this is not enough.
Progress in the talks has been far too slow. The original ceasefire was signed in April 2004, the
Humanitarian and Security Protocols signed here in November 2004, and the Declaration of
Principles in July 2005. You - the parties - have failed to meet the 31 December deadline set
by the Security Council for an agreement. You are now in your seventh round of talks.
And the commitments that you - the parties directly included - have made have not beenhonoured. You - the parties - signed a ceasefire. But it is being broken every day. There is noceasefire in Darfur. The Government of Sudan and the rebel movements have both repeatedly
violated it. Attacks by all sides continue, including on humanitarian convoys and on the AU
mission - the very people who are there to help the civilians affected directly by the war.
Meanwhile the people of Darfur continue to suffer. As a first step I call on you today to take fivespecific and immediate actions:
Declare your positions and deployments as you are committed to doing.
Respect and observe the ceasefire in Darfur, which you signed up to.
Attacks on the AU force and humanitarian convoys have to stop
Facilitate the work of the humanitarian agencies not undermine
The perpetrators of atrocities have to be brought to justice not hidden.
You have a choice. And it is a choice you will be taking in the full glare of international attention.

You can choose to reach an agreement. If that is done, Britain and the international community
will help you - with humanitarian and developmental assistance, with practical support andpolitical encouragement. Or you can choose not to reach an agreement. The result will be
more death and misery in your own lands against your own people, and lost opportunity tobuild a better future for your own people.
There will be other consequences too. The international community is not going to allow thoseindividuals who are responsible for gross human rights violations or blocking the peace
process to escape the consequences of their actions. We know who these people are. There isalready provision for sanctions against such individuals under UN Security Council Resolution
1591.
7 February 2006
Water: meeting our promises
Hilary Benn at the Water Forum, Royal Geographical Society, London
We need to move on from the debate on public versus private and focus on what works. We
also need a better system of global accountability for meeting our promises.
For DFID’s part we are on our way to double our spending on water in Africa to £95 million by
2008; two years ago we were involved in 2 countries, we’re now actively involved in seven:
Ethiopia, DRC, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia. DFID’s next water
update will be published in early April. The EU water facility has agreed proposals worth €230
million which aim to make drinking water available to 10 million people and basic sanitation to
5 million by 2010, with €178 million of proposals for water projects in Africa to be considerednext month. As a “challenge fund” this should bring in matching finance from elsewhere. And
we agreed last year that £200 million of the £250 million that DFID allocated over to the WorldBank for increasing our international effort, should be allocated to the Africa Catalytic Fund –for hard to reach MDGs including water and sanitation. Now this is some progress. But thetruth is we are faced with a huge challenge – and it’s a challenge for all of us, governments, theprivate sector, you name it - and we need to ask where we can do more. And where more ispossible.
If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in water, we need to bring clean water
to an extra 150,000 people, every day, every year for the next 10 years. Why does this matter?
Because the current situation of half the population of developing countries at any given
moment being sick from unsafe water and sanitation, and nearly 6,000 children dying
every single day from diarrhoea is unacceptable.
Because women and girls walk huge distances to collect water for their families.
Because populations are on the move. One dominant trend is of course urbanization.
Because, climate change is a growing challenge in access to water.
This is why it all matters. But what are the practical challenges we have to face up to:
1. Water must be affordable - the poor should not be denied water because they can’t pay.
2. Delivering clean water costs money and the investments needed are huge
3. Donors need to focus more on building resilience to climate change
4. All of this needs to be sustainably financed.
This means thinking about fair cost-recovery – so that there are funds available to ensure thatwhat gets built gets maintained - but where poor people can afford water.
And the conclusion? Well it all depends. Even the cases I’ve described are complex, and foreach side of the story, there is another too. So I’m fed up with a sterile debate about “it must be
this and can’t be that”. I’m fed up with having to explain to people who write in very large
numbers to DFID that far from being the apostles of privatisation, we spend 95% of ourbilateral aid for water on public, community led or humanitarian provision. And I’m really wearyof the way that developing countries are characterised as being helpless victims of evildoers,or are simply written out of the story as if they don’t exist or have no minds of their own
whatsoever. The reason I’m really tired is that it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to get moreclean water to more poor people. So, my challenge is, I’m not interested in what you areagainst but I am interested in what you’re for and how you can help meet the challenge weface.
The World Bank has substantially increased its lending to water and sanitation projects from
US$0.5 billion a year in 2001/02 to US$1.8 billion in 2004/05.The African Development Bank’s
lending to the sector is 7% of its overall lending and clearly needs to rise. The Infrastructure
Consortium for Africa is getting off the ground – with a secretariat in the African Development
Bank. We have yet to see how bilateral donors will raise their share of aid going into water andsanitation; you know about our commitment with relation to Africa. But more is clearly neededfrom other donors. The key source of finance for infrastructure investment anywhere is fromdomestic public finance. But even with all of this, the truth is we are likely to be left with ashortfall in finance, especially in the short-term. This is where the International Finance Facility
could play an important role.
The other area I want to talk about is how we create an international system that works more
effectively than it does now. I’m aware that UN Water is already looking at this. If we look at thewater sector, at the moment, the UN has 23 water agencies all working on water. Everyone ispartly responsible, so no one is fully responsible. Is this really the best we can do? I don’t thinkit’s really good enough. So how can we make it better?
I’d like to float four things by you:
1. We have to radically cut the number of UN agencies operating in water and sanitation. UN
Water must become the coordinating body for a handful of key UN agencies, working
alongside the World Bank.
2. In discussion with national governments, the UN should decide which UN agency shouldtake the lead for the UN on water and sanitation in country. This lead agency, and notothers, should be the channel for donor money allocated to the UN in this sector.
3. UN Water should produce an authoritative annual water and sanitation report to theSecretary General of the UN. This report would monitor progress
4. There are too many ministerial meetings on water. I think we need just one to review therecommendations of the Global Water and Sanitation Report and to take action.
02 February 2006
Political Governance, Corruption and the Role of Aid
Hilary Benn, 3rd White Paper Speech, Royal African Society, London
Only developing countries - led by their own people and their own governments - canultimately make the decisive changes that are needed to fight poverty. State-building cannot
be imposed. Its foundation must be a shared understanding between those who govern, andthose who give their consent to be governed – the “deal” between citizen and state. And thisfoundation has to be laid by each country itself. It’s a process. It takes time. As donors we canassist the process of creating more effective states. One of the ways we can help is to be clear
as we search for the right kind of conditionality – that our aid is conditional on clear principles.
Respect for human rights and international obligations; commitment to improved publicfinancial management and to fighting corruption; and a will to reduce poverty. These are theessential foundations of our partnership.
The biggest challenge we as donors face and governments face in applying these principles isin the poorest countries, where governance is weakest and corruption can be a major problem.
Now some would argue that we should refuse to work in such countries at all until these
problems are sorted out. I think that view is wholly mistaken. Just because poor people live in acountry where corruption is a major problem, does that mean we should walk away? Should
they be made to suffer because governance is bad? I think not. What I think it does mean,
however, is that we should work in different ways in different circumstances to ensure that themoney gets to where it is most needed. That’s why we have refused to give Kenya any directbudget support – money which goes straight into the government budget to be used forsupporting general spending. That’s why in Kenya we have already taken a different approach– money ear-marked for a particular purpose.
Let me ask a second question. Even where there is no reasonable hope of working with thegovernment – as is the case in Zimbabwe – does that mean we should stop caring about its

people? Would it be right to punish Zimbabweans for their repressive regime; a regime they
did not freely elect? I think not. In Zimbabwe DFID provides life-saving humanitarian aid – notthrough the government – but through the UN and NGOs. Even the most enthusiastic
supporters of civil society, and I am one, recognise that ignoring governments and creating
parallel systems, is not the long-term solution to corruption nor a sustainable path todevelopment.
The other argument is that our aid – in whatever form – can prop up bad governments. That’s
a risk that we need to take seriously – and we do. That’s the argument for having a range of
instruments through which to channel our aid.
The final argument for doing something is that corruption undermines public confidence in aid
and its effectiveness – after all, it is taxpayer's money that we provide to poor countries. We
have to make sure it is well used.
In short, corruption destroys the “deal” – the bargain - between the citizen and the state; and it
harms the poorest most. We must be tough on corruption, let’s not be smug about it. Let’s
remember our own history. Corruption, like temptation, exists everywhere.
So what should we do?
1. Recognise that corruption is most able to thrive where accountability is weak.
2. Corruption is both a cause and a consequence of poor – and sometimes outright bad –governance. The primary challenge for our partner governments is building strong,
responsive and accountable institutions.
3. In a globalised world, corruption is played out on a global stage. There is huge potential as
we know for illicit income from natural resources. Consider the enormous waste ofNigeria’s oil wealth over past decades or the destruction of forests in a whole number ofcountries.The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is one way of addressing these
problems.
4. Aid can be part of the solution to the problem of corruption.
We have learned from previous mistakes, and our approach has changed. Where we can, we
work with and through governments to support them in becoming more accountable, more
responsive, and better able to achieve progress – and ultimately more legitimate. And where
we can’t, we will still find ways of helping poor people. And we will continue to work to help
countries fight corruption.
Good political governance is, I think, based on four things:
1. Authority. All governments need authority. It’s simply about being able to get things done.
Does the government have the money, the will and the capacity to build wells, provide
health services to villagers, offer a good education to children, and raise taxes to do allthese things? When those are absent, countries suffer.
2. Governments must respond to the aspirations of their citizens through some kind ofrepresentative government, and this includes respecting peoples’ civil and political rights.
3. Accountability. This means having to explain and answer questions on what you havedone. It applies to public officials, to ministers and to governments. A free and open media
plays a hugely important role as does civil society. The tax system is also crucial.
4. Legitimacy. The extent to which people think their rulers have earned the right to govern.
In the long-term the best way to gain legitimacy is to rule justly in the public interest and tobe elected to do so.
Governments that display the four qualities I have described are more likely to result in
effective and capable states. Given that countries are likely to be at different stages in theirpolitical development, we should not set absolute standards or benchmarks to be applied
uniformly. It would be wrong to judge a country emerging from conflict by the same standards
as a country that has never experienced war. We must judge governments by where they aregoing – there may be problems along the way – but are they heading in the right direction? We
need to have a more sophisticated response to poor and weak governance. We need a clearer
idea of what the right thing to do is in different circumstances. And we need to recognise thatcountries are at different stages of development. We must refrain from the temptation to
micromanage – telling governments that they must reform this or that institution before we will

help. But we mustn’t become a soft touch – in the long run, I don’t think people would thank us
for that!
This is a complex issue; one where it is hard to get the balance right. Making progress is about
making politics work. It will be politics that will help us make poverty history.
PRESS RELEASES
28 February 2006
Drought-affected Burundi will receive £3 million to help the World Food Programme deliver
food aid to 1.5 million people. The announcement came in response to the Government of
Burundi’s appeal for £34 million assistance to meet immediate food needs, outlined in a newplan to provide a total of $168 million (around £98 million) to support the Government’s plansin areas including food needs, health, education and the reintegration of people forced fromtheir homes by conflict.
The UK has also committed £20 million to provide food aid, water, health services andemergency nutrition for children in Ethiopia, Kenya, Eritrea and Somalia.
22 February 2006
£40 million was pledged for a new Common Humanitarian Fund for Sudan, including
Darfur. Other donors were also called on to commit to the fund. This fund should help the UN
to react more quickly and more flexibly to both identified and unforeseen needs, not only in
Darfur but all across Sudan. The UN and donor partners have worked together to develop the
pilot Fund. The £40 million for the Common Humanitarian Fund will be spent in 2006, andmakes up over 60% of the UK’s humanitarian programme for Sudan for the year. Another £23
million will support the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross and other
Non-Governmental Organisations in providing vital life-saving assistance.
21 February 2006
An additional £20 million of UK support for the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS)
was announced. The UK has already committed £19m funding this financial year. The money
will provide equipment, including over 900 vehicles, military and civilian policing advice,expertise and training, airlift of troops into Darfur, and further troop rotation. The UK’s total
contribution to AMIS since its inception is almost £52m.
15 February 2006
It was the first day at the Ethical Trading School for UK firms. Trainees from top UK firms
will learn how ethical trading can help transform their business and improve workers’
conditions in their supply chains, on a new and first-of-its-kind training course run by the
Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) and backed by DFID. Staff from a wide range of UK-based
international companies will attend the first of the four-module ETI Training Programme. The
first module introduces ETI’s Base Code – an internationally-recognised code of practice forworking conditions in company supply chains. Other modules feature advice on how to:
Deal with some typical labour problems found in key sourcing countries and products
Be aware of unintended consequences of implementing ethical trade strategies
Overcome the challenges often faced when engaging with NGOs and pressure groups
ETI is a UK-based alliance of businesses, trade unions and NGOs that aims to improveconditions for workers worldwide. Its new Training Programme is primarily designed for staff
working in large retail or supplier companies that outsource some or most of their production.
Rather than focusing solely on workplace audits it emphasises the need for businesses to takea more strategic approach to change. ETI is part-funded by DFID who helped set it up in 1998,
recognising the important opportunity ETI offers to support its poverty elimination goals.
Training Programme content descriptions (and booking information):
www.ethicaltrade.org/d/training
13 February 2006
A further £60 million in UK humanitarian aid was pledged for the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. The funds will be spent over two years and include help to:
Provide emergency food and shelter for people who flee and for those returning

Provide emergency medical equipment and life-saving vaccinations;Rebuild schools destroyed by conflict;
Provide clean water.
Most of the UK’s pledge will be put into a new joint fund for the DRC, which the UN will beable to draw upon in response to humanitarian priorities to ensure assistance is both fast andeffective. The UK’s commitment comes on the eve of a UN conference which will call for
donors to provide US$681 million (around £400 million) funds for an ‘Action Plan’ for the DRC.
9 February 2006
The UK government has urged the pharmaceutical industry, the public sector and NGOs
to develop new affordable treatments to help save the lives of children with HIV and AIDS,
as a greater number of people than ever before are being infected. The call came as the Third
Global Partners Forum on Children Affected by AIDS (GPF) – bringing together 150 delegatesfrom some 50 countries - met in London to take stock of the response to the pandemic, identify
gaps and obstacles, and promote global cohesion and coordination.
6 February 2006
A new programme to support women’s sexual and reproductive health services received
a welcome kick-start today, with the announcement that the UK Government would contribute£3 million to the scheme. The Global Safe Abortion Programme (GSAP), developed by theInternational Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), will help to ensure that internationallyagreed targets to reduce the number of maternal deaths in the world’s poorest countries areachieved by 2015. The IPPF programme will help its member associations to do more to stop
unsafe abortions as well as helping support groups such as Marie Stopes International andManuela Ramos in Peru, and others which have seen a decline in their family planning andreproductive health services.
Death and Denial: Unsafe Abortion and Poverty
http://www.ippf.org/ContentController.aspx?ID=13100
1 February 2006
The UK Government will provide £310 million ($545 million) over the next three years to
support the Tanzanian Government’s National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of
Poverty – Mkukuta. The funding will be given directly to the Government of Tanzania, to be
spent on programmes for reducing poverty and improving quality of life, including health,education and water projects. The three-year commitment comprises £90 million for financial
year 2006/07, £105 million for 2007/08 and £115 million for 2008/09. The money will be paid ina single sum in the first quarter of each financial year, in line with the Government of
Tanzania’s budgetary requirements.
On January 14, 2006 the Government of Tanzania and 14 GBS donors signed a Partnership
Framework Agreement (PFM) which governs how GBS will work for the next 5 years. The UK’s
announcement of the £310m commitment is in accordance with the agreements in the PFM,
whereby donors commit to increase the predictability of aid flows by indicating theircontributions three years in advance.
NEWS
22 February 2006
DFID are donating 1,500 used high-quality PCs from the recent office refurbishment todeveloping countries. They will be distributed by Digital Links International, a charity foundedwith the vision of helping people in the developing world have access to information
technology to improve their lives.
Digital Links International:
http://www.digital-links.org/
16 February 2006
The second Sri Lanka Strategic Conflict Assessment was launched in Colombo. It builds
on the earlier DFID-commissioned strategic conflict assessment conducted in 2000 but thistime was jointly supported by the governments of the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden as wellas the World Bank and The Asia Foundation. The study analyses the structures and dynamics

of conflict and peace since 2000. It examines how international engagement has interactedwith the conflict - with a particular focus on aid donors – and identifies how the strategies andapproaches of international donors can best engage with and help strengthen domestic
peacebuilding efforts. A series of sub-studies, on the politics of the south, north and east, therole of the vernacular press and economic influences are also available.
Strategic Conflict Assessment – Aid, Conflict and Peacebuilding in Sri Lanka andsub-studies:
http://www.asiafoundation.org/Locations/srilanka_publications.html
8 February 2006
The Commission for Africa and G8 highlighted that private enterprise is a prime engineof growth and development. To boost economic growth in the region, a US$100 million
multi-donor Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF) was recommended. The fund willoffer grants on a competitive basis to private companies to test innovative but unprovenbusiness models resulting in the greater participation of the poor in markets – both as
consumers and also as workers and producers. The design of the AECF is about to begin
with stakeholder consultations to determine which areas or sectors it will focus on and how itwill operate to maximise its effectiveness. Lessons learnt from the implementation of the
DFID-funded Financial Sector Deepening Challenge Fund and the Business Linkages
Challenge Fund, will also be key to the design of the AECF. The planned launch date isNovember 2006.
Project Concept Note:
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/aecf-pcn.pdf
AECF Frequently Asked Questions Sheet
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/aecf-faq.pdf
Financial Sector Deepening Challenge Fund
http://www.financialdeepening.org/default.asp?id=87&ver=1
Business Linkages Challenge Fund
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/funding/businesslinkages.asp
1 February 2006
The UK signed a 10 year Development Partnership Arrangement with Afghanistan at theinternational conference on Afghanistan on 31 January -1 February. The 10-year DPA will help
build the Afghan Government’s confidence and further strengthen its commitment to reducing
poverty. The DPA covers £330 million of UK commitments on international development
assistance provided through DFID. The DPA also transparently sets out Afghan Government
commitments needed for DFID to continue with substantial long-term development support.
These include:commitments on reducing poverty and the Millennium Development Goals
respecting human rights and other relevant international obligations, andstrengthening financial management and accountability.
The DPA specifies what each Government will commit to, and what happens if the Afghan
Government is in breach of a commitment. These commitments should help to strengthen the
Afghan Government’s planning and budgeting through more effective delivery and use of aid,
resulting in greater impact on poverty.
The London Conference on Afghanistan website:
http://www.afghanistanconference.gov.uk/
Development Partnership Arrangement
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/dev-partner-arrange.pdf
The Afghanistan National Development Strategy website
http://www.ands.gov.af/main.asp
The Joint Declaration of Enduring Relationship
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/enduring-relationship.pdf
DFID Afghanistan Interim Strategy Paper
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/afghanistan-interim-strategy.pdf