The Department for International Development (DFID) has decided to close its bilateral aid programme in Burundi in 2012. Burundi is a fragile country which has experienced decades of civil war. It is one of the poorest countries in the world and is unlikely to meet most of the Millennium Development Goals. DFID's states that despite such closure, it will: continue funding Burundi both through a regional programme Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA) and multilateral donors (the EU, the World Bank, African Development Bank) to which DFID is a major contributor; that, other donors will take over bilateral programmes which it has been funding and that the cost of the office in Burundi is too high in relation to the size of the programme. The Committee believes though that the Government should reinstate a bilateral aid programme to Burundi for the following reasons, including: that the UK currently has bilateral programmes with all the countries in the Eastern Africa and Great Lakes Region and that the UK's engagement continues to be critical throughout this region both in perception and reality; that Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA), has already helped to increase Burundi's collection of tax revenues; that there are funding gaps in many sectors in Burundi; that there is a regional dimension to conflicts in the Great Lakes area and Burundi is particularly fragile. The Committee states if DFID does cease bilateral aid to Burundi, a responsible exit strategy is the least it can do to minimise the negative consequences.

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.

This book explains why successful international peacebuilding depends on the unorthodox actions of country-based staff, whose deviations from approved procedures help make global governance organizations accountable to local realities. Using rich ethnographic material from several countries, it will interest scholars, students, and policymakers.

Sierra Leone and Liberia have made remarkable recoveries since their civil wars. Ban Ki Moon was in Freetown this month to bring an end to the UN Security mission and set the UN presence on a conventional development footing from 1st April 2014. In Liberia there has been a gradual drawdown of the peacekeeping mission which will approximately halve the UN military presence by 2015. However both countries remain fragile with high unemployment and concerns about corruption. The devastating Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone and Liberia demonstrates the dangers of ignoring the least developed countries in the world. The weak state of the health system in both countries has greatly reduced the effectiveness of the response to Ebola. There is an alarming lack of capacity in the health system, including a shortage of skilled clinicians.The Committee have determined that the scale of the Ebola crisis now unfolding in Sierra Leone and Liberia, may well be connected to declining levels of international support for health system improvements in what remain two of the poorest and least developed countries in the world.

While DFID's total budget is increasing, the Department will both restrict operating costs to 2% by 2014-15 and reduce its administrative costs by a third in real terms, from £128 million in 2010-11 to £94 million by 2014-15. This report warns that capping operational costs and staff numbers may not reduce overall costs or improve effective delivery of development assistance. The International Development Committee also raises concerns that cost pressures are driving DFID to use consultants to deliver its programmes, rather than in-house expertise. The Department spends £450 million on technical cooperation per year. Much of this is good work, yet it was unclear exactly what this money was spent on, or how effective it was and the extent to which external providers were used. DFID needs to improve its assessment of which projects and services it should use consultants for; and assess more carefully the use of consultants to manage the Department's own delivery programmes. In its efforts to reduce administrative spending DFID might be 'exporting' these costs to other organisations, including NGOs and multilateral aid organisations, with higher real administration costs. The Department should assess the best and most effective way to deliver development assistance as it may be able to do it more cheaply and effectively than external organisations. The report recommends that the Department improves its tracking of and reporting on the total cost of administering its aid programme with the aim of quantifying how much aid actually ends up reaching recipients.

The International Development Committee believes the Government is right to increase aid to fragile and conflict-affected states, such as Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) , but it must prepared suspend or even cancel a programme if a Government flouts agreements or refuses to engage in efforts to increase transparency and accountability. The MPs urge DFID to set out specific governance conditions under which it will provide direct budget support to fragile states, and any under which it will be withdrawn and apply these consistently. They also recommend that DFID invest more in community-led local initiatives which respond to community priorities and give communities more confidence to hold their governments to account. Two case studies of Rwanda and the DRC highlight areas of concern. Rwanda is heavily dependent on aid which provides 45% of government expenditure. The UK will provide £90 million to Rwanda in 2014-15. While Rwanda has made progress in reducing poverty, concerns have been expressed about its human rights record and the lack of political pluralism. The Committee urges the UK Government to use its position as the largest bilateral donor to Rwanda to insist on improvements to the country's governance. In the DRC there is concern about high levels of violence against women and girls. DFID should give greater priority to tackling this in its programme and include the reduction of violence against women in its results framework for the DRC.

The Independent Commission on Aid Impact (ICAI) is an independent commission which reports to the House of Commons International Development Committee, not to the Department for International Development (DFID). The Committee ensures its accountability to Parliament in two main ways: through a sub-Committee, which takes evidence on the reports published by ICAI; and through an inquiry each year carried out by the full Committee into ICAI's Annual Report. 2013-14 has been a busy year for ICAI, with 12 reports published on a wide range of DFID's activities. ICAI's Annual Report contained three headline findings for DFID this year. Firstly, tighter management of multilateral partners is needed. Secondly, DFID needs to continue to improve its aid programme management capacity, especially where contractors are implementing programmes. Thirdly, DFID's corporate results agenda - and in particular its use of 'reach indicators' - is distorting programming choices. The Committee shares ICAI's concerns on these issues and intend to follow up its recommendations in two forthcoming inquiries this autumn: Beyond Aid; and DFID's Departmental Annual Report 2013-14. DFID spends a large amount of money - at least £200 million - on self-evaluation. However, it cannot provide an exact total. The Committee question this large expenditure, especially given that an ICAI evaluation recently found that DFID staff struggle to use self-evaluation material in their work. The contracts of the current ICAI commissioners, contractor consortium and staff all end in May 2015. While staff contracts may be renewed, new commissioners and contractors must be recruited. Planning is underway for the transition to the next phase of ICAI: all possible efforts must be made to ensure this goes as smoothly as possible.

The Independent Commission on Aid Impact (ICAI) was established in May 2011 with a strategic aim to provide independent scrutiny of UK aid spending, to promote the delivery of value for money for British taxpayers and the maximisation of the impact of aid. ICAI reports directly to Parliament through the International Development Committee, which established a sub-Committee on the work of ICAI in October 2012. This has worked well, and has helped foster closer working arrangements that promote the sharing of ideas between IDC inquires and the evaluations that ICAI undertakes. ICAI's Annual Report 2012-13 was generally well-received, as was the Commission's overall performance over the past year. The Annual Report published ICAI's budget for the first time and another excellent innovation was a section following up recommendations made in ICAI's Year 1 reports. ICAI should include a more detailed assessment of the impact of UK aid, including overarching lessons for DFID and should do more to promote lesson-learning across evaluations. This could be done by seminars and outreach events following each evaluation, which would help improve knowledge dissemination, both to DFID and the wider development community. A clear message this year was that DFID must think more strategically about its management of large contracts, especially those with multilateral agencies, nongovernmental organisations and contractors. This seems a fundamental criticism of the Department given the significance of these relationships. DFID should pay closer attention to how it selects external agencies as implementing bodies, and how much it pays for their services.