The International Development Select Committee has done a very useful service in producing its report on the February Mozambique disaster relief operation so quickly. At the time it was clear that the effectiveness of the UK response was in danger of being undermined by inter-Departmental wrangling. The Committee is in no doubt that Clare Short's Department for International Development (DFID) did an exceptional job. They are less complimentary about various aspects of the MoD's handling of the crisis. The most damning conclusion is that: "We consider that events in Mozambique demonstrate that MoD is not yet as flexible, speedy and cost-effective enough to be automatically and seriously considered for deployment by DIFD." This is a serious criticism given that there is an expectation that the armed forces will be used in humanitarian relief operations.
While the report addresses weaknesses in the UN system, and also seeks better mechanisms for bringing in NATO assets to help in such operations, it is the lack of "joined-up government" in the UK which comes across most strongly. The armed forces are rightly proud of the countless humanitarian operations in which their skills have been used. Whether it is flood, earthquakes, volcanoes or famine, there has been a great record of rapid UK military assistance over the years. This public acknowledgement, that the MoD's approach to DIFD's request for help hampered the military contribution, will do little for morale on the front-line.
What will the effect of the report be? It will be surprising if the MoD accepts the criticisms as justified. However, MOD Ministers are likely to make it clear internally that they would not wish to be embarrassed again when the next disaster strikes. MOD Finance staff are likely to demand (probably unsuccessfully) clearer guidance on inter-departmental charging policy. Defence Operations staff will add a few new volumes to their contingency plans in the light of lessons learned. Perhaps the most significant change might be a greater sympathy towards directing more funds towards DIFD at the expense of Defence. After all, if Clare Short could do so well without using defence resources in the first instance, why not let DIFD take a greater part in managing the resources for these activities?