International Development Committee publishes report reviewing UK Development Spend

22 March 2016

The International Development Committee released its interim report for this inquiry on the 22nd March, prior to the publication of the Bilateral Aid Review and the Multilateral Aid Review. The Scotland Malawi Partnership is directly quoted in this report and most of the above points from the SMP are taken forwards by the IDC in some way either as points of concern or direct recommendations.

In January 2016, the Scotland Malawi Partnership submitted evidence to the UK Parliament International Development Committee’s inquiry into DFID’s allocation of resources, following DFID’s new Official Development Assistance (ODA) policy which was released in November 2015.

The SMP made a number of points in its submission to the IDC:

The SMP welcomed:

  • Achieving 0.7% of GNI for ODA and setting this in law
  • 2015 manifesto commitments to fight poverty
  • UK Government’s commitment to comply with OECD rules
  • UK Government’s commitment development in areas of historical and cultural focus
  • DFID’s expertise and impact

The SMP expressed concern over:

  • A narrative justifying ODA predominantly for its benefits to the UK
  • c28% of UK ODA to not go through DFID but other departments, with ambiguous parliamentary oversight
  • Seemingly arbitrary commitment to spend 50% of ODA on ‘fragile states’, without defining the term
  • Risk the shift to fragile states will move resources away from poorest regions – countries like Malawi which aren’t always in the media
  • End of all general budget support
  • The focus on investment without explicit commitment this will always be pro-poor
  • Shift to multilateral delivery, with ownership and decision-making leaving the communities affected
  • Weak and ambiguous commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals
  • The 1955 colonial era UK-Malawi bilateral tax treaty
  • The total lack of reference to engaging civic society anywhere in the 28 page ODA strategy

The International Development Committee released its interim report for this inquiry on the 22nd March, prior to the publication of the Bilateral Aid Review and the Multilateral Aid Review. The Scotland Malawi Partnership is directly quoted in this report and most of the above points from the SMP are taken forwards by the IDC in some way either as points of concern or direct recommendations.

For example, the IDC states:

  • “The most important principle of allocating UK aid should always be that it is allocated where it can most effectively be used to reduce poverty.”
  • “Government should make reducing poverty a legal obligation for the spending of all ODA, regardless of which department is spending it”
  • “With the greater spending of ODA now by other government departments we urge a re-emphasis of poverty reduction as the primary objective regardless of which department is spending it”
  • “We are … asking for more detail about the definition [of ‘fragile states’] and how it will inform allocation decisions, and are keeping a watching brief on the OECD’s upcoming multidimensional fragility framework.”
  • “It is also unclear to us how DFID precisely determines its balance between multilateral and bilateral spending. We therefore suggest that DFID sets out clearly the criteria it uses and how those criteria are used, as part of a broader strategy for how it engages with multilaterals.”
  • “DFID’s choice of priority countries after the Bilateral Aid Review will doubtless be heavily influenced by the new UK aid strategy. We welcome the factors stated in that strategy, but emphasise that foremost amongst these should be effectively achieving poverty reduction.”
  • “We therefore think that DFID should clarify which forms of budget support, if any, will continue, and what its evidence base is for deciding to end [General Budget Support]. We recommend therefore that consideration then be given as to the case for an option to give general budget support in exceptional circumstances, where systems are in place to effectively monitor transparency and accountability.”
  • “We think that it is very important that proper parliamentary scrutiny of UK ODA spending should be retained, especially due to the greater involvement of other government departments.

We welcome this interim report by the UK Parliament International Development Committee, most especially its strong overriding recommendation that the UK Government remains focused on ODA for the purpose of poverty reduction, with resources focused where the greatest poverty alleviation can be achieved.

UK Aid malawi