Written evidence submitted by Christian
Aid
1. Introduction
1.1 Christian Aid welcomes the opportunity
to submit a response to the International Development Committee's
Inquiry into the Draft International Development (Official Development
Assistance Target) Bill. Christian Aid works with some of the
world's poorest people, of all faiths and none, to tackle the
causes and consequences of poverty and injustice, and to campaign
for change. We work in around 50 countries with more than
650 local organisations where there is great need.
1.2 Our work, though varied and not solely
based on the use of aid, benefits greatly from the support of
the UK Government and its consistent and exemplary commitment
to providing developing countries with Official Development Assistance
(ODA).
1.3 Christian Aid believes that ODA has
had some significant and important impacts on the reduction of
extreme poverty. Looking at the Millennium Development Goals we
see that up to 2009, for example, the goal to provide measles
vaccination programmes in Northern Africa and Eastern Asia has
essentially been met.[7]
Much of this success can be attributed to continued ODA, as well
as other factors such as relatively stable infrastructure, governance
and a strong civil society. In order to achieve progress across
all MDGs and in other aspects of poverty, and ultimately to achieve
poverty eradication we need the UK to achieve the 0.7% target.
Without that, developing countries are less able to build governments
and civil societies that can provide for and empower their citizens
to exit poverty.
2. Aim and scope of the Bill
2.1 We welcome this Draft Bill as we fully
support the process to make the Development Assistance Target
legally binding at 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2013.
In Recent years, the United Kingdom government has shown that
it is committed to providing significant levels of Official Development
Assistance through its yearly targets. Putting this practice into
legislation 40 years after the initial agreement by donors
is a very welcome action and one that will ensure the UK finally
meets its goal of 0.7% of GNI.
3. Is legislation necessary?
3.1 Since the United Nations agreement to
contribute 0.7% of National Income towards ODA in 1970, there
has been no certainty as to what level of aid the UK government
would provide, if at all. In recent years targets have been put
into the UK budget, but uncertainty has remained. This means that
before the budgets are finalised, both ministers and NGOs scramble
to influence the decision.
3.2 Legislation is necessary to achieve
the 0.7% target in 2013 and beyond because it will bring
more certainty to the budget process. This will mean that less
ministerial and NGO time, energy and money will be spent on trying
to predict or influence our contribution to ODA. Our commitment
to international development will be enshrined in the UK legal
system, alongside many other international standards, setting
a benchmark for other major donor countries to emulate.
4. Are the proposed measures of accountability
sufficient?
4.1 Though the bill does outline some accountability
measures in terms of oversight and the need to report in case
the 0.7% target is not met, the proposed measures are not sufficient
in terms of providing explanations if the target is not met in
a given year, what action to take if it has not been met, and
which body is responsible for scrutinising the government's actions
in this regard.
4.2 Clause 2 (3) outlines reasons which
would explain why the Secretary of State might not have achieved
the 0.7% target. Understandably, the reasons stated include economic
circumstances, fiscal circumstances and external circumstances.
However, putting these explanatory statements in the bill is essentially
making it acceptable not to reach the targets and providing excuses
for them to fail to meet the target. In order to take compliance
with the bill more seriously, it will be important to remove all
reference to these factors which would explain why the target
has not been met.
4.3 Clause 2 (4) states that the SoS
must "outline any steps that [they have] taken to
ensure the 0.7% target will be met by the United Kingdom in the
calendar year following the report year." This is not sufficient
to ensure that there is a plan to achieve the targets in the next
year. With this statement it is easy to simply not take any steps
towards next year's target, and in that case not report any steps
taken. Instead, clause 2(4) should read "outline the steps
that the Secretary of State has taken to ensure that the 0.7%
target will be met…" This, in our view, would make
it necessary to demonstrate an "action plan" to ensure
that the target will be met the following year.
4.4 Laying a statement for Parliament, as
discussed in clause 2 is not a strong enough response to
non-compliance of this bill. Given that this bill is relevant
to previous International Development Acts which are scrutinized
by the International Development Committee, it is important that
this bill follows suit. This would significantly strengthen accountability
measures in the event of non-compliance and/or would enable proper
scrutiny of the types of government spending which are counted
as ODA, including whether they are genuine poverty eradication
measures. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of this bill should
be amended to show that the achievement of the 0.7% contribution
to ODA—and the action plan in the case of non-compliance—is
scrutinised by the International Development Committee.
4.5 In addition, the bill should include
a clearer statement than that in the previous International Development
Act of the acceptable grounds for development expenditure, with
the Select Committee explicitly empowered to hold the government
to account for the appropriate use of these funds. "Appropriate"
in this context should be defined as "with the express and
exclusive purpose of poverty eradication in the developing world,
excluding climate finance commitments made under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or similar international
agreements".
5. Potential impact on actions of other donors/predictability
of aid levels for developing countries
5.1 At a time like this when developing
countries are struggling to meet both international and national
targets of development it is vital to show that the United Kingdom
is committed to poverty eradication and is a reliable source of
stable, long-term development assistance.
5.2 Additionally, the fact that some developed
countries are currently falling back on their ODA commitments
means that we are in a position to show a positive example of
ambitious development legislation even when economic times are
tough. This is likely to increase pressure on other donors (eg
Ireland and Italy) who have recently cut back their ODA using
the financial crisis as an excuse.
6. Likely impact on the contribution to ODA
from other government departments
6.1 The impact that this bill may have on
the contribution to ODA from other government departments is not
exactly straightforward. It may mean that other departments contribute
more in order to reach the 0.7% target, or it may mean their spending
will not change. Either way, it is important to add more accountability,
clarity and transparency to the process of reporting the 0.7%
and its sources. Overseas Development Assistance spending should
be used to further the goal of poverty eradication and should
not be used in order to further military or wider diplomatic aims
or to cover climate finance commitments. In requiring a report
showing how much each ministry has contributed to ODA, it will
be clear what expenditure is considered Overseas Development Assistance
in various ministries. In order to bring more clarity, accountability
and transparency to all of the departments contributing ODA, clause
1 of this bill should be amended to include in the annual
report a section demonstrating the amount and source of the 0.7%
contribution to ODA.
February 2010
7 http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2009/MDG_Report_2009_Progress_Chart_En.pdf Back
| 
