In 2010 the Department for International Development (DFID) undertook reviews of both its support for multilateral organisations in its Multilateral Aid Review (the MAR) and of its bilateral aid programmes in a Bilateral Aid Review (the BAR). As a result of the BAR, DFID decided to close a number of country programmes following criteria set out in the review. The Department published, in March 2011, the priorities and expected results for the countries where bilateral programmes were to continue. Yet 18 months and two years after that publication, the Department announced that bilateral programmes with India and South Africa would come to an end in 2015. The Secretary of State has not convinced the Committee that the announcement to end the programmes in India and South Africa were in accordance with the principles and process established by the BAR. Such decisions to end a bilateral programme or to start a new one should be made only following a Bilateral Aid Review, except in exceptional cases. Concerns remain about the timing of the decisions and, in particular, that they are neither methodical nor transparent, but related to short term political pressures.

As the end of the 2010-2015 Parliament approaches, the Committee has taken the opportunity to look back on their work. This Report outlines some of the Committee's work, progress and effectiveness during this Parliament and sets out areas that may be of interest to their successor committee. It has also provided the opportunity to scrutinise what actions the Government has taken with regard to issues and recommendations raised in our reports.

The number of low income countries is falling. At the same time, the importance of global issues - conflict, climate, migration, trade, tax, financial stability, youth unemployment, urbanisation economic development, and infectious disease - is rising. The Committee argues that aid remains vital for addressing poverty in poor countries, for encouraging economic development, for providing global goods such as tackling climate change, combating diseases such as Ebola and providing humanitarian assistance, but new forms of co-operation have to be developed in order to meet these challenges. This will include new financial mechanisms and facilitating links with UK institutions in a wide range of areas, including health, education, culture, law, culture and science. This will require the Department for International Development (DFID) to put more emphasis on working with small organisations and less on programme management.As the focus moves away from aid, policy coherence for development must be at the heart of a new approach. This means working across Government in the UK, and with global partners in the multilateral system, to maximise the impact on development of all the UK's actions. This approach and changes will require DFID staff to develop different skills.

This report is the International Development Committee's annual review of UK aid programmes and the administration of the Department for International Development (DFID). The Committee finds that field work overseas should be given greater priority and Ministers must explain UK spending on humanitarian projects more clearly. DFID should not provide funds to support disasters in middle income countries by raiding bilateral development programmes in low income countries. Other wealthy OECD countries must play their part in providing humanitarian assistance. DFID should set out annually its provisional budget for humanitarian relief, what is held as contingencies for unpredictable events and how it will be deployed if not called upon. There has also been a decline in DFID's spending on budget support, the consequences of which should be assessed. £1,075 million of DFID's bilateral expenditure is spent through multilaterals and private contractors. DFID has put in place a number of changes to improve the value for money provided by spending through and should report on their effectiveness. The Committee is also worried that the Department actually spends 40% of its budget in the last two months of the year, which raises questions about the smooth running of management and planning processes. DFID staff should have longer postings overseas (normally a minimum of four years) so that they can develop a deeper understanding of the culture and politics of the country they are working in and engage more effectively with the country's politicians.

Disabled people in developing countries are the poorest of the poor: if we are serious about tackling extreme poverty, our development work has to target them. So while it's good the UK government has brought disability on to the agenda for global development goals (1) - DfID must now lead by example and make effort to ensure the needs of disabled people become a clear and sustained priority going forward within its own development programmes. Despite enormous global advances in education and health since the turn of the millennium, disabled people continue to be excluded from the most basic of services. The Committee calls for DfID to: produce a disability strategy; appoint a larger team responsible for disability; and strengthen reporting processes; show much more ambition in its work with disabled people by targeting them and their needs explicitly; give disabled people a central role in its work; and promote attention to the needs of disabled people including making it an explicit requirement that funding reaches disabled people, especially in disaster and conflict situations where they are amongst the most at risk

Andrea Cornwall is Professor of Anthropology and Development in the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex. --

Young scientists are a powerful resource for change and sustainable development, as they drive innovation and knowledge creation. However, comparable findings on young scientists in various countries, especially in Africa and developing regions, are generally sparse. Therefore, empirical knowledge on the state of early-career scientists is critical in order to address current challenges faced by those scientists in Africa. This book reports on the main findings of a three-and-a-half-year international project in order to assist its readers in better understanding the African research system in general, and more specifically its young scientists. The first part of the book provides background on the state of science in Africa, and bibliometric findings concerning Africa’s scientific production and networks, for the period 2005 to 2015. The second part of the book combines the findings of a large-scale, quantitative survey and more than 200 qualitative interviews to provide a detailed profile of young scientists and the barriers they face in terms of five aspects of their careers: research output; funding; mobility; collaboration; and mentoring. In each case, field and gender differences are also taken into account. The last part of the book comprises conclusions and recommendations to relevant policy- and decision-makers on desirable changes to current research systems in Africa.

The concept of Comprehensive Primary Health Care focuses on health system efforts to improve equity in health care access, community empowerment, participation of marginalized groups, and actions on the social determinants of health. Despite its existence since the late 1970s very few studies have been able to highlight the outcomes of this concept, until now. Revitalizing Health for All examines thirteen cases of efforts to implement CPHC reforms from around the globe including Australia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, South Africa, and more. The findings presented in this volume originate from an international action-research set of studies that utilized triads of senior and junior researchers and knowledge users from each country’s public health system. Primary health care reform is an important policy discourse both at the national level in these countries and in the global conversations, and this volume reveals the similarities among CPHC projects in diverse national contexts. These similarities provide a rich evidence base from which future CPHC reform initiatives can draw, regardless of their country.

The 2006 World Health Report focuses on the chronic shortages of doctors, midwives, nurses and other health care support workers in the poorest countries of the world where they are most needed. This is particularly true in sub-Saharan Africa, which has only four in every hundred global health workers but has a quarter of the global burden of disease, and less than one per cent of the world's financial resources. Poor working conditions, high rates of attrition due to illness and migration, and education systems that are unable to pick up the slack reflect the depth of the challenges in these crisis countries. This report considers the challenges involved and sets out a 10-year action plan designed to tackle the crisis over the next ten years, by which countries can strengthen their health system by building their health workforces and institutional capacity with the support of global partners.