Written evidence submitted by the International
Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
Before providing comments on certain points
of this Inquiry, IPPF would like to highlight its support for
the work of the Department for International Development. The
leadership and progressive role demonstrated by DFID internationally
has ensured that it is justifiably regarded as a leader in the
field of sexual and reproductive health.
Whether legislation is necessary to achieve the
0.7% target in 2013 and beyond
1. IPPF believes that legislation is necessary
to achieve the 0.7% ODA target in 2013 and beyond and the
ODA promises first made in 1970 at the UN General Assembly
and reaffirmed in many agreements since, including in the Monterrey
Consensus[14]
and the UK-led Commission for Africa's "Our Common Interests".
Although many years have passed since the international community
first agreed on a specific ODA target, only five countries have
reached or exceeded this target. They are: Denmark (0.82%); Luxembourg
(0.92%); the Netherlands (0.80%); Norway (0.88%) and Sweden (0.98%).
A further 11 countries have stated they will do so before
2015: Austria (2015); Portugal (2015); Greece (2015); Italy (2015);
Germany (2014); the UK (2013); Spain (2012); France (2012); Ireland
(2012); Finland (2010); Belgium (2010).[15]
2. It should also be noted that in 1991,
Finland's ODA reached 0.8%.[16]
Since then Finland has failed to reach 0.7%. This demonstrates
that ODA can be subject to various factors unrelated to the aims
of ODA and poverty reduction, but more to other considerations,
such as the state of the economy; changing political priorities
etc which could result in a reduction in ODA spending. The evidence
of history therefore suggests that unless the target is translated
into law, it will not be reached or maintained.
3. By being the first country to legislate
on the target, the UK would be able to further demonstrate and
highlight its significant leadership and proven commitment on
development and social justice issues.
4. Legislating the 0.7% of GNI commitment
would require the Secretary of State to be accountable to parliament
for this spending and would therefore ensure that the spending
allocations were met. Such a measure helps to provide for open
and transparent government. In addition, once the target becomes
law any changes would be subject to democratic process, including
debate of the arguments for and against.
5. Increasing development aid is essential
to reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) at a time
when many are unrealised, MDG5 lags behind and issues such
as climate change and the financial recession require addressing.
It should be noted that if all donor countries were to reach the
0.7% of GNI target, no additional funding for achieving the MDGs
would be required.[17]
It is our hope that funding for MDG5 in particular would
increase, given that this is the MDG least likely to be auctioned.
It is time, therefore that governments realized their promises
and turned words into concrete actions.
6. By increasing ODA and legislating on 0.7%,
controversial issues—such as those related to sexual and
reproductive health and rights or the environment, which national
governments can be reluctant to fund, could perhaps be funded
more easily, as there would be less competition for resources.
7. Although IPPF supports the government's
proposal to make 0.7% legally binding, it is discouraged that
the Bill is unlikely to come into force before the next parliament.
The potential impact of the Draft Bill on the
actions of other donor countries in respect of meeting their ODA
commitments
8.If the UK government were to legislate for
"at least 0.7% of GNI" as its ODA contribution, it would
send out a clear and positive message to both developing and other
donor country governments; and would encourage other donor countries
to take similar steps. Although some governments would want to
monitor the impact of the UK commitment closely, it would demonstrate
that the UK is committed to international development and affirm
its status as a global leader in human rights and poverty reduction.
In addition, it would oblige recipient countries that are signatories
to the Monterrey Consensus, for example, to accelerate progress
to improve government. The impact of legislation is therefore,
beneficial to both donor and recipient countries.
Whether enshrining the ODA target in legislation
is likely to affect the predictability of aid levels for developing
countries
9. IPPF supports initiatives to make ODA
predictable and commends the government for its commitment to
increasing ODA to "at least 0.7% of GNI" by 2013. By
enshrining ODA in legislation, aid would become more predictable
and support country ownership by allowing recipient countries
to plan more effectively. As the intention of ODA is to reduce
poverty, stimulate economic development and in doing so, avoid
aid dependency, the recipient country must have real ownership
of the resources required to make progress on development. An
advantage of predictable aid is that long-term agreements can
be made between recipient and donor governments—that follow
good practice norms with respect to aid effectiveness. This allows
the recipient government to plan, budget and implement the long-term
programmes and projects that are required to reduce poverty and
stimulate the local economy. It is critical civil society is involved
in developing such plans.
10. ODA will tackle greater impact on reducing
poverty if it is enshrined in legislation. This is because the
different political parties, when in government, would face significant
challenges in order to reduce ODA. As such, legislation would
not only reduce the risk of ODA becoming politicized, but would
prevent changing governments from both interfering in, and reducing
their financial commitments to development assistance (a potential
threat during times of economic uncertainty).
11. If ODA is not predictable, low income
governments are unable to commit to longer-term expenditure that
are necessary for achieving development goals. It is also likely
that these low income countries would be forced into borrowing
more in the short term to avoid cutting programmes. As such, financial
shortfalls of aid forces recipient countries to borrow more than
they had intended with the overall economic impact that they have
to repay higher-rate loans, leading to greater economic burdens.
Likewise, "unpredictable aid can increase the cost of public
procurement in health in some cases by over 20%, and decrease
utilization of primary facilities (in some cases by up to 70%)."[18]
In addition, aid that is not predictable also leads to macro-economic
instability affecting the budgeting processes of recipient country
governments. In addition, it is important to recognize the role
that civil society organizations play in ensuring that G8 governments
approved a debt relief plan for the poorest nations and promised
to double aid to Africa. While NGOs welcomed these initiatives,
they also regretted that the debt deal only cancelled 10% of the
needed debt relief, entirely excluding 44 indebted countries.
Whether the legislation is likely to affect poverty
reduction objectives for ODA expenditure as set out in the International
Development Act 2002
12. The definition of ODA needs to be modified
to ensure that its focus is directed at poverty reduction, without
which, social justice and sustainable social and economic development
cannot be achieved. At present, ODA is defined as "resource
flows to developing countries and multilateral institutions with
the express purpose of promoting the economic development and
welfare of developing countries as their main objective and, that
they are concessional in character, conveying a grant element
of at least 25%".[19]
Poverty reduction, in its broadest terms, while implicit, is not
explicitly recognized within this text. This needs to be altered
to reflect the breadth of development issues and to recognize
that not all areas of development can be measured economically.
Indeed, poverty also relates to a lack of rights and a lack of
choice. It should also be noted that economic development will
often benefit the few and not the many, and as such, should make
reference specifically to the wider community through reference
to poverty reduction. However rights, including the human right
to health cannot be achieved in a context of poverty.
13. It is important for ODA to be redefined
so that it recognizes and measures the impact that it has on the
economy of a developing country, rather than just measure the
totals being granted/lent by the donor. As such, it should be
the impact of the loan/grant on reducing poverty that is important
and not the amount lent/granted. Although we recognize the need
for more and better aid, it is important that the way the aid
is used is measured on the ground.
14. If ODA was restricted to poverty reduction,
its impact would be focused on poverty in all its forms. This
is because more funds would be spent on measures to actually reduce
poverty rather than to areas of development that are only linked
tenuously to poverty reduction. Examples of this would include:
the funding required to cover the costs of foreign students and
the cost of hosting political refugees which are currently allowed
under ODA reporting.
14 See Para 42 of the Monterrey Consensus, cited
in: The Millennium Project, The 0.7% target: An in-depth look
at: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/07.htm Back
15
See International Aid-a Solution at: http://www.poverty.com/internationalaid.html Back
16
See Net ODA as percentage of OECD/DAC donors GNI-Finland at: http://www.indexmundi.com/finland/net-oda-as-percentage-of-oecd-dac-donors-gni.html Back
17
Ibid Back
18
Beyond Accra: What action should DFID take to meet our Paris and
Accra commitments on aid effectiveness by 2010? July 2009, Aid
Effectiveness & Accountability Department (AEAD) Back
19
Draft International Development (Official Development Assistance
Target) Bill, Explanatory Notes, P9, Jan 2010 Back
| 
