Written evidence submitted by the UK Aid
Network (UKAN)
About the UK Aid Network (UKAN)—UKAN
is the main network of UK development NGOs who work together on
aid quantity and quality issues.
UKAN's work is guided by a Steering Group,
which currently includes the following organisations—Actionaid
UK, BOND, CAFOD Care International UK, ONE, One World Action,
Oxfam GB, Publish What You Fund, Wateraid and World Vision UK,
who have all endorsed this submission.
In addition, the following UKAN members have
also endorsed this submission: Christian Aid, Save the Children
and Tearfund.
1. Introduction
1.1 UKAN members warmly welcome this Draft
Bill, as it represents the start of a process which aims to make
legally binding one of the UK's longest standing unmet international
commitments—to deliver 0.7% of national income as Official
Development Assistance (ODA). We have been campaigning for such
legislation to be passed for some time now, and made this one
of our key recommendations in a joint BOND submission to the government's
White Paper consultation in 2009.
1.2 We believe that there is no more important
time to make the UK's ODA commitment legally binding. With enormous
challenges facing the poorest countries in meeting the MDGs and
facing ongoing financial, food and climatic crises, it will help
to deliver vital support to tackle poverty in these countries.
In addition, with many developed countries currently falling behind
on their ODA commitments, it shows them what types of steps are
required to meet these commitments and may inspire renewed commitment
from these countries. If the Bill could be passed before the UN
MDG Summit in September 2010 it will provide such impetus
to this critical gathering.
1.3 We also want to note our previously
communicated (in writing to the Government) position, that given
the relative simplicity of this Bill and cross-party support for
reaching 0.7% by 2013, it should have avoided a Draft stage and
instead been introduced as a Full Bill in January 2010.
2. Is legislation necessary?
2.1 UKAN members feel that legislation
is absolutely necessary, as 2010 marks 40 years since
the 0.7% commitment was first made by developed countries, and
it may well be that it is only with the help of such legislation
that the UK's ODA commitment will finally be met.
2.2 We also believe that the UK's ODA commitment
should be treated like many international standards that are adopted,
and be enshrined in the UK's legal system in order to ensure it
becomes a fundamental part of our national policy.
3. The aims and scope of the Bill
3.1 The main objective of this Draft Bill
is to make the 0.7% ODA commitment legally binding for the UK
government to meet from 2013. Although the major political parties
have promised to meet 0.7% by 2013, this Bill will strengthen
this commitment and therefore be a major milestone in the UK's
development ambitions.
3.2 UKAN members believe that the general
scope of this Draft Bill is adequate to achieve this hugely important
objective, as it states unambiguously that the UK will meet 0.7%
from 2013 whilst relying on previous legislation (the 2002 and
2006 International Development Acts) to deal with issues
such as the purpose of the UK's aid, detailed reporting to parliament
and other key issues.
3.3 However, we do feel that the accountability
measures in this Bill could be stronger and we make recommendations
for this in section 4 below.
4. Are the Bill's accountability measures
sufficient?
4.1 UKAN members believe that the measures
in this Bill do provide some oversight of UK government performance
on the 0.7% ODA target and a degree of accountability in actually
delivering on this commitment. However, we do feel that the accountability
measures could be stronger in a number of respects.
4.2 Firstly, because clause 2.3 specifically
states that in the case of non-compliance the Secretary of State
can refer to economic, fiscal and external factors to explain
this outcome, UKAN members believe it will make it harder for
those trying to hold the government accountable to argue that
any such circumstances referred to are not sufficient justification
for non-compliance. Additionally, given that the ODA commitment
in this Bill is based on a share of GNI it inherently builds in
recognition that as economic circumstances change the absolute
levels of aid required to meet this target changes. We therefore
recommend that reference to these factors be removed from the
Bill, so that it simply states the SoS must "explain why
the 0.7% target has not been met in the report year". This
is consistent with the approach taken in the Child Poverty Bill,
for example (see Clause 13.5 of the Child Poverty Bill, quoted
in Annex 1 to this submission).
4.3 Secondly, clause 2.4 does not require
the SoS to outline measures to achieve 0.7% in the following year
in the case of non-compliance, but simply to outline "any"
measures to be taken to achieve the 0.7% target in the following
year. We therefore recommend that this Bill state that the
SoS must outline the measures required to be taken to ensure the
0.7% target is met in the following year. This is consistent with
the approach taken in the Child Poverty Bill, for example (see
Schedule 2.3.b of the Child Poverty Bill, quoted in Annex 1 to
this submission).
4.4 Thirdly, we believe that given its responsibility
for scrutinising the work of the Department for International
Development and overall ODA spending for parliament, accountability
around the 0.7% commitment would be strengthened if the International
Development Committee (IDC) had a role in scrutinising UK performance
in meeting it. This is especially important given the need for
compliance with previous International Development Acts that are
relevant to such assessments (eg around objectives of aid) and
are deferred to in this Bill. We therefore recommend that the
IDC be given a role in formal scrutiny of performance in meeting
0.7% in a manner laid out by previous legislation. This is consistent
with the approach taken in the Climate Change Act, which requires
a Committee on Climate Change—admittedly not a parliamentary
committee but a body supporting parliamentary oversight in this
case—to report to parliament on progress in meeting the
commitments in this Bill (see Annex 2 to this submission
for quotes from relevant parts of the Climate Change Bill).
4.6 Fourthly, we believe that it is important
that there is increased transparency around the contribution of
different parts of government to ODA, as such data is crucial
to judgements about the 0.7% commitment being met within the parameters
of all existing legislation. We therefore recommend that as
part of reporting requirements the Bill require the SoS to report
annually on the contribution of different government ministries
to ODA levels. This is not currently a specific requirement in
the 2006 International Development (Reporting and Transparency)
Act.
5. Potential impact of this Bill on the predictability
of the UK's aid
5.1 At present the UK government struggles
to provide aid recipients with firm funding commitments outside
of the years covered by a Comprehensive Spending Review, due to
the uncertainty around the level of the aid budget for those years.[46]
Given that it has been estimated that unpredictable aid can reduce
its real value by up to 20%[47]
such a situation is also reducing the effectiveness of the UK's
aid.
5.2 Given this, UKAN members believe that
a Bill making the 0.7% commitment legally binding from 2013 will
provide the UK government with the financial security to make
more substantive long term commitments to recipients from 2013,
thereby improving the predictability of the UK's aid and its effectiveness.
6. Is the Bill likely to affect the poverty
reduction objectives of the UK's aid as set out in the 2002 International
Development Act?
6.1 By avoiding defining the objectives
of the UK's aid, the Draft Bill therefore defers to the 2002 International
Development Act's statement that the UK's aid is to be used for
poverty reduction. It therefore does not challenge the 2002 Act
on these matters.
6.2 In addition, this Bill helps to promote
the poverty reduction objectives of the UK's aid by referring
to it as Official Development Assistance, a term which is defined
by international guidelines (set through the OECD) that define
what types of support to developing countries can be counted as
aid.
6.3 We would like to highlight that giving
the IDC a role in assessing whether the 0.7% commitment has been
met (see 4.4) would help to safeguard the poverty reduction objectives
of the UK's ODA further.
7. Is the Bill likely to impact on the contribution
to ODA from other government departments?
7.1 As the Draft Bill defers to the "poverty
reduction" objective of the UK's aid set out in the 2002 International
Development Act and indirectly endorses the OECD's aid definitions,
it maintains the current standards set for aid from other UK government
departments to count towards the UK's 0.7% commitment. It therefore
is unlikely to have any impact on what levels of ODA are delivered
by various government departments, but merely to hold them to
account to previously agreed standards for what constitutes ODA.
Annex 1
EXTRACTS FROM CHILD POVERTY BILL 2009
13 REPORTS BY
SECRETARY OF
STATE
(5) If the UK strategy has not been implemented
in full, the report must describe the respects in which it has
not been implemented and the reasons for this.
Schedule 2
Duty to maintain targets
2 If the target statement relating to the
target year or a renewed target year indicates that the targets
have been met in relation to that financial year, the Secretary
of State must ensure that they are also met in relation to the
financial year following that in which that target statement is
laid before Parliament.
Duty to make regulations requiring targets to be
met in specified financial year
3 If the target statement relating to the
target year or a renewed target year indicates that any of the
targets has not been met in relation to that financial year, the
Secretary of State must make regulations under this paragraph—
(a) requiring the Secretary of State to ensure
that the targets are met in relation to a later financial year
specified in the regulations;
(b) requiring the Secretary of State, the Scottish
Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department to publish
strategies;
(c) requiring consultation by the Secretary of
State, in relation to any strategy prepared by the Secretary of
State, with the persons mentioned in section 9(4)(a) to (c) and
consultation by the Scottish Ministers and the relevant Northern
Ireland department, in relation to strategies prepared by them,
with the persons whom they are required to consult under section
12(3)(a) to (c); and
(d) requiring the Secretary of State to publish
annual reports on the implementation of any strategy prepared
by the Secretary of State.
4 Regulations under paragraph 3 must
be made as soon as reasonably practicable after the time when
the target statement referred to in that paragraph is laid before
Parliament.
Annex 2
EXTRACTS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE ACT 2008
PART 2
THE COMMITTEE
ON CLIMATE
CHANGE
The Committee
36 Reports on progress
(1) It is the duty of the Committee to lay before
Parliament and each of the devolved legislatures each year, beginning
with the year 2009, a report setting out the Committee's views
on—
(a) the progress that has been made towards
meeting the carbon budgets that have been set under Part 1 and
the target in section 1 (the target for 2050);
(b) the further progress that is needed
to meet those budgets and that target; and
(c) whether those budgets and that target
are likely to be met.
37 Response to Committee's reports on progress
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament
a response to the points raised by each report of the Committee
under section 36 (reports on progress).
5 February 2009
46 As an illustration of this, total budget support
commitments for 2011-12 are only 2/3 of those for 2009-10,
probably in part because commitments outside of the Comprehensive
Spending Review have to be discounted because of uncertainty around
the aid budget. See DFID's 2009 Annual Report, p199, table
F5 for supporting data Back
47
See "Aid Effectiveness-Benefits of an EU Approach",
EC, Oct 2009 Back
| 
