British Aid Review 2011

British Aid Review David Seddon At the end of March, I spent a couple of hours at the Overseas Development Institute – one of the UK’s premier development think tanks and research institutes. Together with BOND, an organisation that coordinates the activities of many British development NGOs (non-governmental organisations), it was hosting a London Dialogue on the situation of the world’s Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and how it had changed over the last ten years since the last UN Conference on LDCs issued a Programme of Action to provide assistance (not just aid, but also ‘fair trade’, debt forgiveness, etc.). There were numerous luminaries at the meeting, including the UN High Commissioner responsible for LDCs, the British under-secretary of state for development, and a representative of LDCWatch, a watchdog for global society with regard to the interests of the people of the LDCs – all of whom spoke as panel members – and representatives of various British and international development NGOs. The Dialogue was held a couple of days before hearings on global civil society and the LDCs to be held at the UN in New York later this week, and a month or so before the major UN Conference on LDCs to be held in Istanbul in early May. It also follows a recent thorough review by the British Department for International Development (DFID) of its strategy, its priorities and its specific aid programme for the coming years. The audience was privileged to hear the Under Secretary of State speak on this topic for some time. Firstly, British aid should reach the target of 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2015 with a major commitment within that to aid to the least developed countries (LDCs). In fact, the majority of the countries that will be supported by British official development assistance (ODA) are in fact also LDCs. Some 30 per cent of all British aid will go to countries identified as ‘fragile’ with unstable regimes and/or internal conflict. All of the speakers recognised that ‘aid’ was not the only way in which the developed countries could help the less developed – debt relief and reduction, fairer terms of trade and better access to all their markets, more foreign investment and technology transfer, specific support to human resource development (ie more funds for education and health, particularly for girls and women) and to infrastructure development (energy, electricity, transport and communications). All talked of ‘ownership’ of ‘aid’ programmes and projects by LDCs themselves, although there was a striking discrepancy between the call for ‘unconditional debt forgiveness’ by the LDC representatives and the British Minister’s insistence on ‘some form of conditionality’. It was also clear that DFID, like the World Bank and other lending agencies supposedly promoting pro-poor development, continues to place undue reliance on the private sector to ‘lead’ the aid programme or poverty alleviation programme adopted by a given government, and to impose commitments in this regard as a pre-condition for loans and grants. Decades of misery caused by this ‘conditionality’ – even, or perhaps particularly, for debt relief, which LDCWatch and others demand should be unconditional – imposed by the IMF and the World Bank and bilateral agencies following ‘the Washington Consensus’ appear to be ignored in favour of an ideological commitment to private enterprise and the ‘free market’. The discussion that followed the panel speakers’ presentations included questions and comments about the difficulty of determining precisely what enables countries to ‘develop’ successfully, the role in future of the newly emerging developing countries (the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, etc., about the role of the European Union and regional (ie African, Asian and Latin American) associations in providing support to the LDCs, the importance of protection and welfare support measures for the most vulnerable sections of society (including provision of safe water and sanitation, and better access to facilities for mothers and children), and the importance of promoting democracy – the current Arab spring’ was mentioned as a case in point. I asked about the apparent contradiction between suggesting that ‘ownership’ of development and poverty reduction programmes should be encouraged on the one hand and imposing conditionality on the other – and watched the Minister squirm and smile. All in all, a good ‘curtain raiser’ for hearings in New York and the UN Conference in Istanbul in May – and an opportunity for British NGOs and people concerned with development issues, with global poverty and vulnerability, to come together and exchange ideas and suggestions. All of those present, I think, agreed that it had been useful ‘food for thought’ and a chance to underline the importance of focused global support for the poorest, even in hard times - and indeed, perhaps particularly in hard times. Some of us though remained sceptical about the Coalition government’s continuing commitment to the private sector as a source of pro-poor initiatives.