Department for International Development

From WikiPolitiks
(Redirected from CDC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Department for International DevelopmentWikipedia's W.svg, website, intl aid
  • ToDo: check which charities the DfID is currently dishing out do$h to.
  • Nov.2015: The new aid strategy presents aid spending on "economic development and prosperity" in developing countries as a tool to create "new trade and investment opportunities for UK companies".(?ref?)

The DfID is a govt department responsible for administering overseas aid. The goal is "to promote sustainable development and eliminate world poverty". The UK Aid logo is often used to publicly acknowledge DfID's development programmes are funded by UK taxpayers.


DfID is the main bilateral aid agency in the UK, and administers up to 70% of all UK Overseas Development Aid. UK-DFID became an IATI member in 2008, and published to the IATI Registry in Jan.2011. It currently chairs the IATI Technical Advisory Group. PWYF page
    2018: Very Good 90.9%   2016: Very Good   2015: Very Good   2014: Very Good   2013: Very Good 

Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies

Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the UK


Advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies

Independent Commission for Aid Impact

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutiny of UK aid. ICAI focuses on maximising the impact of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and getting the best value for money for the UK taxpayer. (
The Independent Commission for Aid Impact scrutinises UK aid spending. We operate independently of govt and report to Parliament through the House of Commons International Development Committee or their ICAI Sub-Committee. ref The body scrutinises and reports on the effectiveness of Overseas Development Aid, focusing on the work of the Department for International Development (DFID) and other govt departments that disperse ODA.[2] The ICAI reports to the House of Commons through the International Development Committee. (WP)

... There is also a question of accountability. It is notable, for example, that the International Development Select Committee has found itself hampered in overseeing all UK aid. When it examined the question of policy coherence in 2015, the National Security Council refused to give evidence. The Committee concluded that ‘we have been constrained in the inquiry by the refusal of the National Security Adviser to appear before us. We recognise that parliamentary scrutiny of the National Security Strategy and NSC is led by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS). However, we also believe that the NSC should be accountable to other Committees, including ours, so we can test whether it is taking adequate account of such issues as conflict prevention.’ ref, Nov.2017. Note: Simon Maxwell is/was Director of the ODI. He has several more articles on Aid and Aid Management here.

Other Bodies

Government Equalities Office


CDC Group plc

CDC GroupWikipedia's W.svg, website, People, CH, reg. Dec.1999
CDC Group plc was incorporated under the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 which, amongst other things, exempted the company from UK Corporation tax with effect from May.01.2003, but not its subsidiaries, hence the Guernsey reg.[A/cs 2016, p.33] CDC Group: "Activities of venture and development capital companies". RLE: DfID. CDC is a UK govt-owned investment company that invests in private sector businesses in developing countries. CDC has one investor, the DfID. Its funds are provided by DfID in the form of share capital with the intention of CDC providing investment management services by using those funds to invest in developing countries through a mixture of direct investment and fund of funds private equity structures. CDC's mission is to invest to support the growth of all sizes of private sector business... (p.24). CDC invests to support the growth of all sizes of business because it believes that a balanced private sector is necessary for economic development and robust job creation. ... Private equity firm Actis LLP manages 13.3% of the portfolio, as at end 2016. CDC has investments in 75 countries, with 1,245 underlying companies.

  • CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd, subsidiary of CDC, holds a 30% interest in Tsavo, a power generation compay based in Kenya. The company provided directorship services to CDCFS during the year. (?ref?)
ToDo: {{{1}}}

Globeleq Group

website, brochure, WP search, CH search, Board, Leadership, Networks Globeleq Group is "an experienced operating power company, focused on actively developing economially sustainable energy businesses".


  • 100%: Secretary of State for International Development,


  • CDC Group plc
    • Globeleq Ltd, holdco, CH, OC, reg. Guernsey Mar.16.2018
      70%: CDC Group plc
      30%: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,ref via Norfund
      • Globeleq Ltd, branch holdco, UK branch of Globeleq Ltd, CH
    • Globeleq Africa Holdings Ltd, CH, direct shareholder of Globeleq Advisors, reg. Guernsey
      • Globeleq Africa Ltd, formerly: Globeleq Advisors Ltd (to Jan.2018; Globeleq Management Ltd (to Sept.2001); Jupiterbrook (reg. Jul.2001)), advisory and support to the Globeleq Group, CH, OC, reg. Guernsey
        • Globeleq Inc, subsidiary of Globeleq Advisors, reg. USA.
        • Globeleq Holdings (Bauchi) Ltd, production of electricity, CH.
      • Globeleq Holdings (Kenya) Ltd, holdco, CH
        • Globeleq Holdings (Zambia) Ltd, production of electricity, CH, reg. Mar.02.2017.
  •  ? Globeleq Expatriate Services Ltd, no mention in OC or CH, reg. Mauritius.


  • Feb.01.2019: UK aid funding must not be privatised. Proposals to refocus aid as private investment could weaken support for vulnerable people worldwide. Proposals by the international development secretary, Penny Mordaunt, to refocus UK aid towards for-profit investment risks weakening support for the people who need our help the most, and compromising the work Britain does to make the world a safer, healthier and more just place to live in The Guardian, Claire Godfrey, Head of policy and campaigns at Bond.
  • Apr.01.2016: UK Aid budget swelling coffers of private firms, claims campaign group. ward of aid-funded contracts worth £450m to London-based consultancy shows funds are being diverted from poor, says Global Justice Now report. The govt is undermining its commitment to tackle poverty in the developing world by spending hundreds of millions of pounds of aid through a handful of UK-based consultancy firms. The study, which focuses on the work of Adam Smith International (ASI), says the use of consultancies diverts aid money from those in greatest need, with the authors accusing the Department for International Development (DfID) of a "shift towards the private sector". The report also questions how such spending sits with the UK’s 2001 decision to "untie" its aid from British commercial interests. GJN’s study "The privatisation of UK aid: how Adam Smith International is profiting from the aid budget" says the London-based firm has won at least £450m of aid-funded contracts since 2011, and received nearly £90m of DfID money in 2014 alone. While the latter amount may be a small share of the total £6.8bn bilateral aid budget for that year, GJN points out that "it is still more than the entire amount spent on human rights and women’s equality organisations, or almost twice that spent on programmes to tackle sexually transmitted diseases including HIV and Aids". The report claims that ASI is using DfID money to pursue a "free-market" agenda in developing countries. It says that Nigerian electricity consumers are facing price increases of up to 45% because of what it terms "a controversial energy privatisation programme supported by UK aid through a multi-million-pound project implemented by ASI". In Afghanistan, meanwhile, local civil society organisations report that the country’s new minerals law – drafted with ASI’s support – has done little to improve their lot, according to the study’s authors. GJN called on DfID to explain why it hires for-profit, UK-based companies such as ASI rather than using its own staff, or firms in developing countries. The Guardian, Sam Jones.
  • Mar.2016: The Privatisation of UK Aid; How Adam Smith International is profiting from the Aid budget. After decades of work by campaigners and activists, in 2015 the UK enshrined in law a commitment to spend 0.7% of its national income on international aid to tackle poverty around the world. But behind the scenes, this has been a lucrative time for aid-funded business. Consultancy rms, including Adam Smith International (ASI), are “taking an ever increasing share of the aid budget and enjoying generous profit margins”. In 2014, the DfID spent £90m through ASI, which is twice what DfID spent tackling HIV and Aids. Specifcally we call on DfID to: (a) Justify why it has been contracting out projects to UK for-profit companies instead of being managed in-house or through an organisation in a developing country; Require full disclosure of contractors’ costs, fees and profit margins to be publicly available; Publish an action plan setting out how it will spend more through organisations in developing countries in the future. (Tag: Privatisation Fail) Global Justice Now.
  • Nov.2015: [https:// attachment_data/ le/478834/ODA_strategy_ nal_ web_0905.pdf "UK aid: tackling global challenges in the national interest,"] HM Treasury & DfID, p.3, p.17.
  • Apr.2015: “Not acting openly and accountably” – the ECP/Ibori case. In Feb.2014, the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman reported, accusing the DfID of maladministration. The CDC failed to "act openly and accountably" and did not deal with the case in a transparent way. Many fund managers have simply refused to implement CDC’s Business Principles, without CDC being able to take any action against them. Even after CDC made it a contractual obligation for fund managers to sign up to their new investment code, CDC has only “limited rights” to the accounts and records of fund managers. CDC has no rights whatsoever to force a fund manager to withdraw from an investee company. (see p.15) Re:Common, Counter Balance, Antonio Tricarico, Re:Common.
  • Sept.07.2011: Aid still benefits companies from donor countries. Despite a pledge made 10 years ago to end 'tied aid', Aid recipients are still being forced to buy goods and services from donor country firms. Researchers estimate that $69bn is spent each year buying goods and services for development projects. But much of this money flows to developing countries only on the books and may never leave the donor countries. 10 years ago, aid donors pledged to put an end to the "tied aid" scandals that obligated aid recipients to buy from donor country companies. The UK formally untied all development assistance in 2001, with the justification that "tied aid reduces value for money" and tends to lead to inappropriate and expensive projects that do little to tackle the needs of the poorest. But Tuesday's report from the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad), a network of 54 NGOs from 19 European countries, says many countries have reneged on their promises and at least 20% of all bilateral aid remains formally tied. Meanwhile, two-thirds of formally untied aid contracts still go to firms from rich donor countries. "Donor countries continue to mislead their own citizens and those of developing countries, by passing off what is essentially state aid to donor country firms". The reliance on companies from rich donors deals a double blow to developing countries, says the report, racheting up the cost of development projects while failing to deliver sustainable social and economic benefits. Big development banks – including the World Bank – systematically opt for international competitive bidding, notes the report, increasing the chances that large firms from donor countries will win contracts. Half the contract value of World Bank-funded projects in the last decade went to companies from donor countries. In 2008, 67% of World Bank-financed contract amounts went to firms from just 10 countries. Eurodad's researchers also found no relationship between the cases where donors chose to buy locally and the quality of countries' public financial systems. The Guardian, Claire Provost.
  • Nov.01.2006: Britain’s global power empire. What is the British govt doing promoting electricity privatisation in the developing world? John Hilary reports on the govt-owned multinational power company Globeleq. Red Pepper, John Hilary, War on Want.
  • Sept.2006: Globeleq: The Alternative Report The UK govt uses Aid money to promote privatisation of public services in developing countries. Globeleq is primarily a power generation company; it then sells this power on to distribution companies that supply the electricity to communities. CDC’s function is summarised by DfID as "promoting the private sector in the developing world". CDC has attracted criticism for its activities, and for the inflated salaries and bonuses received by its executives. Vast amounts of public money supposedly earmarked for development purposes have actually been given to US power companies wishing to exit their operations in the developing world. Two such companies – AES Corporation and El Paso Corporation – have benefited by over US$1 bn in this way. Privatisation of the electricity sector has not been successful in expanding coverage to poorer communities; quite the opposite. World Bank commentators have acknowledged that privatisation will indeed entail significant price rises, and that their impact will fall especially hard on the poor. The OECD admitted that privatisation of public utilities has been characterised by "dramatic failures", as "profit-maximising behaviour has led privatised companies to keep investments below the necessary levels, with the result that rural communities and the urban poor were further marginalised in terms of access to electric power". Despite this, the World Bank and IMF continue to insist that developing countries undertake electricity privatisation as a condition of receiving their loans. The DfID's own research found that after privatisation, "Utilities seemed to have done particularly badly – in general they had seen profitability, employment and capital investment fall, debts rise and sales remain stagnant". In Mar.2005, DfID adopted a new policy on aid conditionality, in which it pledged that it would no longer make the privatisation of public services such as electricity and water a condition of UK aid to developing countries. Yet 40% of UK aid is channelled through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and EU, and much of this is still dependent on developing countries accepting harmful conditions such as privatisation of public services. DFID announced in 2005 that it will be channelling a record £1.3 bn of UK aid through the World Bank over the next 3 years. War on Want.