This is a locked entry partly because I’m professionally concerned with some of this, and partly because I’m going to refer to rumour and speculation.
The British government announced yesterday that it will cut its foreign aid programmes (in the sense of ‘phase out by 2016’, not ‘end next week’) in 16 countries: China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Moldova, Bosnia, Cameroon, Lesotho, Niger, Kosovo, Angola, Burundi, the Gambia, Indonesia, Iraq and Serbia; and focus bilateral resources in the 27 countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, the Palestinian Occupied Territories, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
As a strategy to concentrate on eliminating poverty, it makes sense. It’s nice to see several African countries ‘graduating’, in the sense that the UK considers it unlikely that poverty reduction will be as big an issue in 2016 for Cameroon, Lesotho, Niger, Angola, Burundi, and the Gambia. I’m sorry to see my own current clients, Moldova, on the list, but I have to admit that if the relatively new government is able to continue its record of economic growth and also integrate more strongly with the EU, the case for switching resources elsewhere is rather good.
However, I’m also sorry to see a narrowing of focus at the same time as the budget is being increased. Reducing poverty is obviously a laudable goal, but the UK has done at least half-decently in funding democratisation and human rights, and it would be a shame if (as is implied) that expertise now gets stopped.
That’s all a matter of fine-tuning. However, what really made me sit up was the announcement of changes of funding to various multilateral organisations. The Minister announced,
I am delighted to tell the House that nine organisations have been assessed as providing very good value for the British taxpayer. They include UNICEF, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, or GAVI, the Private Infrastructure Development Group, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We will increase funding to those organisations, because they have a proven track record of delivering excellent results for poor people. Of course there is always room for improvement and we will still require strong commitments to continued reform and even better performance.
At the same time, DfID funding to various other bits of the UN is to be reduced, and in some cases cut entirely (including the International Labour Organisation, though it will continue to receive the UK’s membership fee which comes from a different pot).
I’m entirely prepared to believe that the ILO is poor value for money (even though my aunt works for it). But I was astonished to see UNICEF and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria on the list of agencies that perform well. My own soundings within the humanitarian aid community – where I don’t work myself, but various friends and former colleagues do and mutter to me from time to time – was that both UNICERF and the Global Fund are absolutely shocking in their institutionalised mismanagement of projects, both in terms of how they treat their staff and how they manage funds.
My soundings may be out of date, or may have been wrong in the first place, and perhaps UNICEF and the Global Fund have got their act together in time for the government’s review. But as I said, I was very surprised to see them rank quite so highly.
