The OECD-DAC must not allow the UK government to mark their own homework | Bond

One of the main ways that donor governments such as the UK are currently held accountable for their action on aid and development is through the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC).

However, the most recent OECD-DAC review of the UK’s performance illustrates the problems with donors essentially marking their own homework, which reinforces calls for radically reforming this body and creating a more accountable aid system.

The OECD-DAC’s main mechanism for reviewing the aid and development efforts of its members is it’s ‘Peer Review’ process.

These Peer Reviews are traditionally undertaken every 4-6 years and involve the OECD-DAC Secretariat, working with a group of peer governments of the OECD member being reviewed, to undertake a detailed assessments of its aid and development policies, practices and systems.

The last Peer Review

of the UK was undertaken in late 2019 and early 2020, and it was published in November 2020. This report lauded the maintenance of an official development assistance (ODA) budget of 0.7% of gross national income (GNI), the poverty focus of this budget and the knowledge, evidence and global value-added of the then Department for International Development (DFID). It also set out ten recommendations for how the UK could strengthen its aid and development work.

However, since the Peer Review, the foundations for much of its praise for the UK have collapsed.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, in September 2020, DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) were merged to form the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), which is reported to have led to declines in development focus, departmental capacity and aid transparency.

Then in November 2020 the government announced that the UK aid budget would be reduced to 0.5% of GNI from 2021, until ‘fiscal conditions allow’ for a return to 0.7% (currently not expected before 2027/28). The government has also been using this reduced ODA budget to fund a significant increase in spending on refugees in the UK, with £4.3 billion, or 28% of total UK ODA, used for this purpose in 2023.

As per its standard practice, in late 2023 the OECD-DAC undertook a mid-term review of the UK’s performance in addressing the recommendations from the 2020 Peer Review.

Bond members welcomed the opportunity to formally meet with the OECD-DAC team as a part of this process. We were therefore eager to hear how the OECD-DAC had judged the UK’s performance since 2020.

This mid term review was published on 4 March, and it concluded that “the UK ha{s} made good progress on two of the ten recommendations made in the 2020 peer review and some progress against a further six”. Although these conclusions are far from wholly positive, a review of the evidence underpinning them suggests a great deal of generosity on the part of the OECD-DAC.

The conclusion of ‘good progress’ on enabling risk-based management of development cooperation (recommendation 8) is based on the introduction of new relevant policies.

But there isn’t an indication that these are yet to feed into action, especially when development capability has declined.

The conclusion of ‘some progress’ on promoting policy coherence for development across government (recommendation 3) fails to acknowledge new restrictive legislation on asylum seekers, which is incompatible with international law, reversals in some policies covering the reduction of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and a failure to control arms sales to Israel which are contributing to the conflict in Gaza.

And the conclusion of ‘some progress’ on enabling oversight and accountability for the whole-of-government contribution to international development (recommendation 5) failed to identify any new institutional measure to support oversight of policies beyond ODA.

It is also hard not to conclude that the OECD-DAC struggles to effectively challenge its members when its recommendations have been fundamentally undermined.

The first recommendation in the original review was that the UK should retain the 0.7% commitment and the line of sight between ODA spending and poverty.

The mid-term review judges that there has been ‘limited progress’ on this recommendation when it is clear there has been a dramatic decline in performance, with the 0.7% target being dropped and almost 30% of spending diverted to the UK.

Language matters, and the OECD-DAC must unambiguously call out members for such damaging actions, especially when they happen at a time of extreme global need.

It seems clear that the OECD-DAC has ‘pulled its punches’ in assessing the UK’s aid and development performance since 2020.

Although important changes have been made over the last year and half – with new Ministerial and Permanent Secretary posts on development, an additional £2.5 billion in ODA for 2022/23 and 2023/24 to support refugee related spend and the publication of the White Paper – the overall trend is of dramatic decline, with action to reverse it largely still to be delivered.

This brings into further question a system of OECD members effectively holding each other accountable for their actions on development.

To address these concerns, a first step must involve giving the OECD-DAC Secretariat more powers to challenge its members and allowing

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The article discusses issues related to aid and development, poverty reduction, gender equality, inequality, and accountability. These align with the goals mentioned above.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere.
• Target 5.A: Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property.
• Target 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the population at a rate higher than the national average.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.
• Target 17.15: Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development.

These targets are relevant to the issues discussed in the article, such as poverty reduction, gender equality, reducing inequalities, and improving accountability in aid and development efforts.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 1.1.1: Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line, by sex, age, employment status, and location.
• Indicator 5.A.1: (a) Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure.
• Indicator 10.1.1: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita among the bottom 40 percent of the population and the total population.
• Indicator 16.6.1: Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (or by budget codes or similar).
• Indicator 17.15.1: Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation.

These indicators can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets, such as measuring poverty levels, gender equality in land ownership, income growth for the bottom 40 percent, government expenditure transparency, and the use of country-owned planning tools in development cooperation.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: bond.org.uk

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.