Leaks and Aid promises – clearing away the fog

The Defence Secretary, Liam Fox MP, has seemed to challenge the UK’s commitment to aid spending. On 17th May the Times published a leaked letter criticising the government’s plan to make the level of aid spending legally binding (at 0.7% of National Income).

The proposal he is opposing has been the policy of all three main parties since before the election. Plans haven’t been tucked under the carpet but passionately stated and restated at the highest levels, including in the Coalition agreement. It’s a big deal internationally. It stands out in the G8 and G20, and was discussed by David Cameron and Pope Benedict during last year’s papal visit.

Not for turning

Backsliding would be embarrassing and Dr Fox’s letter must have caused some spilt coffee when it landed in Number 10’s inbox. It makes several worrying points – some better reported than others.

First, that “The Bill could limit HMG’s ability to change its mind about the pace at which it reaches the target in order to direct more resources toward other activities or programmes rather than aid.” Or in other words – we won’t be able to cut the aid budget in future if we do this.

It’s a striking disagreement with the official position – and a relief to see this very quick rebuttal from Number 10 in response to the Times report: “The aid allocation in the spending review shows our commitment to implementing our pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on official development assistance from 2013. We are fully committed to enacting the 0.7 per cent commitment into law, in line with the Coalition agreement.”

Aid is vital

The moral and practical case for aid remains clear – but failure to meet promises is undermining its ability to make a difference. Take the world’s precarious food situation for example. G8 leaders pledged $22 billion to boost agricultural production across the developing world in 2009 – but analysis from Action Aid shows that only 22% of the pledge has actually been delivered to date.

Aid like this is vital to help poorer farmers around the world boost harvests and access markets – and reduce the number of children who go hungry. It has already lifted millions of people out of the misery of extreme poverty, and will do the same for millions more if commitments are met.

We should be proud

So we should be proud that the UK is one of the few that consistently keeps its promises. The Prime Minister was facing MPs in Parliament on the very day that the leak hit news-stands and was asked about the leaked letter.

He repeated the importance of the UK’s “duty to the poorest in our world” and noted how important it is that the UK “kept its word” on aid promises. When it was put to him that the letter’s suggestion that the government might “change its mind” actually reinforced the case for legislation he agreed with a one word answer: “Indeed”.

Let’s be clear

There are plenty of sceptics who are not as convinced as the PM, even within his own party. Progressio and many colleagues across the sector know that we must show clearly how aid funding makes a difference to the poorest, and we must do as much as possible to be transparent about the impact of our work. Which makes the next line of the leaked letter border on the scandalous:

“… as a result of the wider drive to improve the transparency and accountability of international development work, the Government’s own monitoring and reporting requirements for ODA  are likely to become more stringent. This may present risks to my department’s ability to both report certain priority activities as ODA [Overseas Development Aid] and, therefore, to receive funding for them from the Conflict Pool.”

In other words, the Defence Secretary is arguing against greater accountability for aid spending. It looks like he’d quite like to charge the aid budget for things which aren’t actually anything to do with helping poor people improve their lot.

What is aid for?

The official definition of aid (as laid down by the OECD) is quite broad. For example, it can include support for demining, demobilising former soldiers, training for police and customs officials, and the use of the military in support of humanitarian aid work. So quite what “priority activities” he has in mind would be interesting to understand.

At a moment when charities are trying their hardest to explain clearly how we spend precious resources from donors for the good of the poorest, and increase the transparency of our work, the Defence Secretary would apparently like to retain some convenient fog in the government’s aid accounts. We’d love to know why…

Tim Aldred is Progressio’s Policy and Communications Manager.

Photo: Farmers in Malawi husking maize. Progressio partner organisation Environment Africa works with these and other farmers on sustainable agriculture projects. (Photo © Marcus Perkins/Progressio)