Lord Collins: Government rule changes around Overseas Development Aid driven by politics, not policy
3 min read
Conservative manifesto commitment to challenge the agreed definition of what constitutes Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) could undermine cross-party consensus on the 0.7% spending target, says Lord Collins.
At the last general election, the Conservative manifesto contained a commitment to challenge the internationally agreed definition of what constitutes Overseas Development Assistance (ODA). That promise has the potential to undermine both the cross-party consensus on the 0.7% spending target and the UK’s leadership role in encouraging others to step up to the plate to meet it. The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has been holding a High Level Meeting (HLM) since the start of this week and will conclude today, when we will know what our government has achieved.
I have a follow up question in the House of Lords today to one I asked Ministers in early July about their consultation with civil society groups and NGOs on changing ODA rules. To be fair, they have engaged with numerous bodies in the past four months. But as I found out before the summer, they aren’t always forthright about their plans. DfID did not articulate exactly what they wanted to change in the rules to either NGOs or Parliament before this week’s HLM, despite multiple questions. This suggests that the desire to change the rules is driven by politics not policy.
DfID have attempted to work with other governments in the DAC to build a consensus, but without clear goals and sufficient lead-in time, the UK seems to have mishandled negotiations. Peace and Security seemed to be the main areas where the government thought a consensus would be achieved. There is no doubt that the world is rapidly changing: defence, diplomacy and development are necessary ingredients to securing the global peace we desire. All of this is necessary in supporting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development.
DAC recognised this in February 2016 at another HLM, when agreement was reached on updating the rules. The rule changes that were agreed recognised the detrimental impact of conflict, fragility and insecurity on efforts to tackle poverty, and reflect the importance of private sector investment for development. However, the core principle of the ODA system remains unchanged. To count as ODA, an activity must support the economic development and welfare of a developing country as its main objective.
Current resistance to the UK proposals is mainly because the 2016 reforms to ODA on peace and security have yet to be reported on. Our government has failed to answer why they thought the changes were no longer relevant or sufficient. But I suspect an even bigger blow will come following the Prime Minister, Chancellor and DfID Secretary making it known that they would be asking the DAC to waiver the rules to allow wealthier countries to receive ODA, because of climate related emergencies. It quickly transpired that the UK was not supported at all in this action and that the DAC were very unlikely to concede.
So what are the UK’s plans for this waiver if the HLM ends, as looks likely, without supporting the UK? Will our government work with partners at the DAC and build a consensus, or operate unilaterally like their manifesto threatens? In the Lords later today, the DfID Minister will hopefully take the opportunity to outline specific policy proposals and make clear where rule changes are being sought. I won’t be holding my breath.
Lord Collins of Highbury is Shadow DfID Minister in the House of Lords.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
