§ Hilary Benn
Our projects and programmes are monitored on a regular basis and we assess the likelihood of their achieving the objectives set for them. The figures for the last two financial years are:301W
Financial year Percentage 2001–02 High risk projects judged likely to be successful +24 Medium risk projects judged likely to be successful +56 Low risk projects judged likely to be successful +81 2002–03 High risk projects judged likely to be successful +33 Medium risk projects judged likely to be successful +52 Low risk projects judged likely to be successful +84
For the purposes of this exercise, we judge projects receiving a score of 1 or 2 to be successful (ie those completely or largely achieving their objectives). Projects receiving a lower score may have partly achieved their objectives and so achieved a measure of success. One of the main aims in the monitoring and review process is to identify areas where projects are not achieving all of their objectives and take corrective action.
The monitoring and review process is carried out for projects under implementation but we also assess projects on completion where the latest figures show that 77 per cent, were judged likely to achieve their overall purpose.
We have a target in our 2003–06 Public Service Agreement to improve the performance of our projects in each risk category.
§ Hilary Benn
Divisional performance funds were introduced from 2000–01 as reserves to be allocated in-year by directors, largely to reward good performance but also to respond to unforeseen demands and opportunities, including urgent humanitarian needs. They provide flexibility to allocate additional funds to those countries and institutions where progress on reform enables effective use of funds in pursuit of poverty reduction.
The table shows the total amounts budgeted:
DFID performance funds £ million Africa Asia 2000–01 57 4.5 2001–02 10 1 2002–03 14 18 2003–04 35 0 2004–051 151 65 2005–061 289 130 1 Includes amounts provisionally earmarked from Director General Performance Fund from 2004–05.
In Africa in 2000–01 there were two payments, one of £29 million to assist copper industry restructuring in Zambia, and another of £28 million as programme aid to support economic reform in Kenya. In 2001–02, a smaller sum was available, of which £7 million was spent on humanitarian assistance: £5 million in the DRC (through the International Red Cross) and £2 million on humanitarian projects in the Sudan. A further £0.25 million was spent on AFRICAP, an African 302W micro-finance investment fund. In 2002–03, £10 million was spent on programme aid to Ethiopia as our bilateral relationship strengthened, £3.2 million on humanitarian work (in Angola, Sudan and the Great Lakes region), and a further £0.8 million contribution to AFRICAP. Some £35 million is available in 2003–04, much of which will he needed for humanitarian work.
Asia's performance fund allocations were smaller than Africa's at £4.5 million in 2000–01, £1 million in 2001–02 and £18 million in 2002–03. This fund was used for various purposes including responding to humanitarian needs and a transfer to the Afghanistan programme. Asia does not have a performance fund allocation for 2003–04.
From 2004–05 onwards, resources for performance funds rise significantly. These funds will be allocated in part before the year commences, although significant amounts will remain to be allocated in-year. They will be targeted at those countries that are currently performing less well or that are in or emerging from conflict. We are already planning high and stable levels of spending in countries with a clear commitment to, and capacity to deliver, poverty reduction.