A standing ovation or a slow hand clap: what do the UK aid reviews mean for the poorest?

Mar 1st, 2011 6:58 PM UTC
By Tom Wallace

Today Andrew Mitchell, the Secretary of State for International Development, announced the results of reviews of the UK’s bilateral and multilateral aid programmes to the House of Commons. These are the result of many months of work by officials at the Department for International Development (DfID), who have been carrying out assessments of the effectiveness of the aid the department gives directly to poor countries and what it gives to international institutions like UNICEF and the World Health Organisation.

The reviews were designed to identify how to increase the impact of UK aid for the world’s poorest people, achieve results and demonstrate value for money. This has become even more important following the Government’s commitment to spend 0.7% of the country’s income on overseas aid by 2013 while most other government departments are facing cuts.

Andrew Mitchell outlined where Britain’s aid money will be spent. He said that, over the next 5 years, the number of countries receiving UK aid will fall from 44 to 27. In Africa, Angola, Burundi, Cameroon and Niger will see their aid flows stop, however of the 27 countries remaining 18 are in Africa.  A number of Asian countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan will see their aid from the UK increase in line with the Government’s stated priority of giving aid to fragile and conflict-affected states. This has been dubbed the ‘securitisation of aid’, and has been criticised in some quarters. ONE shares some of these concerns, so we were reassured to hear Mitchell saying that the focus on the poorest would remain with funding being directed towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Let’s hope his deeds are as good as his words.

The multilateral review assessed the organisations’ effectiveness and its contribution to UK development objectives. Using this formula, organisations that ONE has championed like GAVI and the Global Fund come out very well, as does UNICEF. However, a number of organisations that have not done well have been placed in ‘special measures’. This means they need to improve performance or within two years or they will lose funding. These include the Commonwealth Secretariat, Unesco and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). While the FAO has long been regarded as in need of reform, the UK should take an active role in helping to improve its performance because agriculture and food security are central to poverty reduction – particularly in Africa. A more efficient effective FAO could play a critical role in helping address high global food prices.

ONE’s overall view of the reviews is a cautious welcome.  We support the focus on reducing poverty and helping meet the Millennium Development Goals and the push to demonstrate value for money. Channeling money thorough organisations like GAVI and the Global Fund that have been shown to be highly effective in saving lives also makes real sense. It is estimated that GAVI has prevented 5 million deaths since it was established in 2000 by providing routine vaccinations to children, while the Global Fund has saved 6.5 million lives since 2002.  We hope that the government will now follow through the logic of its approach by announcing a significant increase in funding for the Global Fund and GAVI in the coming months.

However, we think there is a worrying lack of concrete investments in agriculture. More than 1 billion people, or 1 in 6, suffer from hunger. Global food prices are at an all time high and it is absolutely essential that DFID provide supports to help people increase the productivity of their farms, allowing them to feed their families and generate a sustainable income.  Funding agricultural development, particularly in Africa where about 70% of the population live in rural areas, is crucial if we are to create wealth and reduce poverty in the long term.

TAGS: Development Assistance, Policy News, UK