Written Evidence to the International Development Committee into Extreme Poverty and the Sustainable Development Goals

About the ONE Campaign

The ONE Campaign is an international development advocacy and campaigning organisation, working to end extreme poverty and preventable diseases, especially in Africa[1]. ONE members raise their voices and put pressure on governments to keep their promises to the world’s poorest people. ONE has been at the centre of campaigns to increase development budgets in order to raise vital funds for the fight against poverty, and to call for measures to ensure that aid is spent effectively and meets high standards of transparency. We believe that this is vital for maintaining public confidence in our aid budget.

How well is UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) targeted towards tackling extreme poverty and how effectively do the FCDO policies and programmes contribute to the achievement of Target 1.1 of SDG 1?

In 2020, ONE published the second iteration of the Real Aid Index, an assessment of each UK government department that spends more than £50 million of ODA in 2018 and its top 3-5 programmes against the poverty focused, effectiveness and transparency principles in the Real Aid Charter[2]. This information is available in the online interactive tool available at one.org/real-aid-index. We also have newer analysis on the impact of the aid cuts which we have reflected on in later sections of this written evidence submission.

Our analysis discovered that approximately, £1.6 billion of ODA in 2018, was not focused on the poorest people nor demonstrated how effective it was[3]. Of the 38 programmes assessed, just over half were scored as ‘weak’ on poverty focus or in effectiveness. This means that it was not clear how some programme’s objectives were helping to alleviate poverty, that they were not spending at least fifty percent of their budget in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) or fragile states, that they were not consulting nor hiring local actors during programming, that they were not demonstrating results that they wish to achieve, or in many cases, information on the programmes were not publicly available and thus difficult to assess. 

The largest five programmes which were scored as ‘weak’ include the Support for Asylum Seekers and the Syrian Vulnerable Peoples Relocation Scheme both administered through Home Office, the Newton Fund through the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, Frontline Diplomatic Activities through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and CDC, which was administered through the Department for International Development. Since we published this analysis, the Newton Fund has been heavily scaled down as a result of the aid cuts[4].

Frontline Diplomatic Activity (FDA) are allocated by the FCDO on diplomatic staffing and estate maintenance costs and had a budget of £287 million in 2018. Activities included supporting tailored events, assistance to groups to participate in national, regional, and international events and provision of specialist training including through expert seminars. There was a general lack of information on this programme, for example it notes which countries the FCO spends FDA, however, there is no further information on what exactly these activities were.

The Chevening programme is an education programme which provides scholarships to enable graduates from over 150 ODA-eligible countries to pursue postgraduate study at UK universities and had a budget of £58 million in 2018. The Chevening Scholarship scored weak on our analysis as all its funds are spent entirely in the UK, and it was not clear how it was alleviating poverty as there was minimal information on how many of its students were from disadvantaged backgrounds.

How might the FCDO’s strategy, policies and programmes need to change as the number of people in extreme poverty grows due to the global pandemic or the effects of climate change?

The pandemic has exacerbated global poverty, the World Bank estimates that it pushed 97 million more people into poverty in 2020[5]. Since the pandemic hit, African government revenues have sharply declined, while the need for public spending to protect lives and livelihoods skyrocketed. Almost half of all African countries are at risk of being unable to pay off their debts. In Nigeria, where 1 in 5 people lost their jobs due to COVID-19, 97% of federal government revenues were spent on debt service in 2020[6]. And whilst the UK and other richer countries have seen a successful vaccine rollout amongst their populations, just 12% of people in Low Income Countries (LICs) have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine[7].

Whilst we await the International Development Strategy which will hopefully clearly outline the FCDO’s priorities, we have used the Integrated Review to determine whether we believe that the government’s policies align with the principles in the Real Aid Charter.

The Integrated Review set out to articulate the UK’s policy objectives across security, defence, development, and foreign policy, combining previously separate reviews into one[8]. And yet, it was disappointing to see that the development component was very light in the review. The aid cuts also pose a challenge in determining the strategic targeting of UK aid spending. The Integrated Review reiterates the government’s position that the UK will return to its commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development when the “fiscal situation allows”. This ambiguous target will make strategic planning difficult for the government and other implementing agencies.

The Integrated Review highlighted East Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, and South Africa as focus areas. Many of these are strong emerging economies which should continue to receive UK support and investment; however, it is crucial that the UK must continue to spend at least fifty percent of its ODA budget in LDCs. It is unclear if the FCDO will continue to adopt the fifty percent to fragile states target that was adhered by DFID. The Integrated Review also outlined a stronger focus in the Indo-Pacific. This shift in dial could mean less money on other areas, which is why it is important to protect spending for LDCs and fragile states.

It is commonly argued by those supporting a greater focus of UK aid spending on Middle Income Countries (MICs) that a large percentage of extremely poor people live in MICs. While this may be true, it is also the case that MICs have considerably greater access to non-ODA sources of finance than LICs. ODI have shown that MICs have 100 more tax than LICs and could raise a further $1,960 billion, which could cover most of the costs of ending poverty; LICs could only raise another $11 billion and still not even cover half the costs needed for investment in public sectors such as education, health, and WASH[9].

Alongside spending at least fifty percent of ODA in LDCs and fragile states, the ONE campaign encourages all donor governments including the UK to meet the following targets to help alleviate poverty and tackle global challenges[10]:

• The UK government should continue to focus on building strong health systems and support healthcare workers. As seen through the Oxford and AstraZeneca COVID19 vaccine, the UK has world-leading research and development capacity on global health. Investing in health is important in preventing future pandemics that will greatly affect the UK. Therefore, we suggest that at least 20% of UK aid to be spent on health.

• At its peak, COVID-19 resulted in 1.6 billion enrolled learners being out of school; ensuring they all return and that they can catch back up quickly is critical for the future of entire economies. Therefore, we suggest for at least 15% of UK aid to be spent on education.

How effectively do the FCDO’s strategy, policies and programmes address the needs of women and girls in extreme poverty?

Women and girls continue to be a priority for the UK government, and ONE welcomes the announcement by Foreign Secretary Truss that the FCDO will restore the women and girls’ budget that was affected by the aid cuts[11].

In the Real Aid Index, we looked at what proportion of departments, funds and programmes were specifically marked for gender. To determine this, we used the OECD DAC’s gender marker, which is described as; “the (gender) marker is a qualitative statistical tool to record development activities that target gender equality as a policy objective. The gender equality policy marker is used by DAC members as part of the annual reporting of their development activities to the DAC, to indicate for each aid activity whether it targets gender equality as a policy objective. The data based on the marker provides a measure of the development finances that DAC members and other actors allocate in support of gender equality.”[12]

Within the Real Aid Index, if 85% of the department, programme or fund had a significant and a principle objective for gender, we would conclude that they were ‘strong’ on advancing gender equality. Of the programmes assessed, none of the FCO programmes scored well on this gender indicator, whereas in DFID the two programmes and funds we assessed which were not core contributions - CDC and the Humanitarian Assistance and Resilience in South Sudan – had 100% of their objectives meeting the gender marker criteria. At the time of our analysis, we indicated that all aid spending government departments should do more to target their objectives to women and girls.

The UK government insists that it has been a global leader in helping to ensure that every girl in the world has access to at least 12 years of quality education. However, the UK fell short of the civil society ask of £600 million over five years to the Global Partnership for Education (GPE). As host of the Global Education Summit, the UK committed £430 million over five years to GPE, which was incredibly disappointing as girls’ education is a top priority for the FCDO and the Prime Minister.

The aid cuts have also exacerbated cuts to girls’ education. ONE analysis indicates that the bilateral FDCO education budget has had a cut of 45% in 2021-22 compared to 2020-21. This will mean that nearly 4 million girls will no longer have access to a decent education. These are worrying figures, and if the UK government is serious about increasing the number of girls attending school by 40 million as outlined in the Integrated Review and in advancing the rights of women and girls, it must reverse the aid cuts and commit to spend more on education.

What effect have the cuts in UK ODA had on the FCDO’s ability to address extreme poverty? What evidence is there to suggest poverty was a key consideration in deciding where the cuts should fall?

There has been a general lack of information from the government to adequately assess this question. Ultimately, the FCDO has seen a thirty percent cut to its budget, which means that many programmes which address poverty such as nutrition, will be affected. The FCDO will have to deal with many competing priorities when making decisions in allocating budgets.

Using the information made available to us, we were able to assess the possible impacts of the aid cuts. We used data from the FCDO Annual Report and Accounts (2020-21)[13] and compared this to allocations in priority sectors that Dominic Raab outlined in April 2021: climate and biodiversity; global health security; girls’ education; humanitarian preparedness and response; science & technology; open societies and conflict resolution; economic development and trade[14].

It would be extremely difficult for the government to promote its priority sectors, whilst heavily slashing its aid budget. In the table below, ONE analysed four priority sectors which all indicate cuts of up to 49% in bilateral ODA.

Sector Allocations

Our analysis shows that cuts to sectors which address poverty such as health and humanitarian aid will have huge potential impacts on livelihoods. For example:

• Nearly 4 million fewer girls will have access to a decent education 
• 5 million women and girls will no longer have access to family planning methods
• 11 million children under 5 and women will be at risk of malnutrition
• 3 million people will no longer have access to humanitarian assistance 
• 54 megawatts of clean energy will no longer be generated as a result of International Climate Finance support

Whilst some countries such as China and Brazil will see an increase in bilateral ODA from the UK of up to 6976%, low-income countries (LICs) such as Ethiopia and Yemen will see cuts to their bilateral ODA of up to 63%.

UMICs and MICs Allocations

LICs and Fragile States Allocations

ODA cuts to countries will have potentially devasting results for people. ONE analysis indicates that in Rwanda, 164 thousand fewer children will be supported to gain a decent education; in Ethiopia 498 thousand fewer women and girls will have access to family planning methods; and in Nigeria 2.9 million fewer women and girls will have access to family planning methods.

How the FCDO can play a more effective part in the eradication of poverty as a convener, thought leader and investor?

The UK’s global influence and reputation can be credited to the key role it plays within the world’s largest multilaterals. The UK’s UN security council seat means that it can magnify it’s impact around the world by demonstrating fairness and implementing evidence-based policies on behalf of many countries. Other donors look to the UK to inform their practises and in making allocation choices for funds. ODI analysis demonstrated that Belgium looked to the UK’s multilateral aid review as an “importance source of information on multilateral performance”[15].

Over the past 30 years the UK has been at the heart of the global response to health crises and emergencies around the world. UK leadership was evident in the creation of the first HIV treatment, the first malaria vaccine, and the UK is the second largest contributor to global health (behind the USA). The UK was at the forefront of the global response to the pandemic with UK universities and research institutions working alongside scientists from around the world to develop safe and effective vaccines and other treatments to protect the public from Covid-19.

The UK’s contribution to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria will help to save 2 million lives between 2021 and 2023 and the UK’s direct contribution to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance will help to protect up to 75 million children from deadly diseases between 2021 to 2025. The UK has also demonstrated impressive diplomatic and convening skills, as the hosts of the replenishment conference for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and helped to mobilise pledges of at least $8.8bn to support life-saving vaccination programmes in the world’s poorest countries.

Pooling collective resources through international cooperation to solve global challenges via multilateral institutions is extremely effective in helping to eradicate poverty, which is why we encourage that the UK continues to champion multilateral institutions. The Centre for Global Development’s ‘Quality of Official Development Assistance’ report is dominated by multilateral institutions which consistently come on top, demonstrating value for money and effectiveness[16].

The UK has the diplomatic prowess to help leverage further financing to many multilateral institutions. The UK committed $1.9 billion to the International Development Association (IDA) in 2021, or 8% of total donor contributions. This is a decrease of 55% of what the UK contributed to IDA19, in fact, the UK was the only donor not to increase its contribution to IDA; the US increased its IDA contribution by 17%. IDA is an important institution which helps provide jobs for the poorest people, for example, from 2010-2018 IDA provided 13 million days of employment for 167 thousand people in Ghana, of whom 65% were women. China has recognised the importance of IDA, and has been increasing its contributions, it more than doubled its IDA commitment in 2019 from $589million to $1.2 billion and in IDA20 it contributed $1.3 billion. The UK risks losing out to other large players such as China if it pulls back from multilateral contributions.

How has the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development affected the UK’s approach to extreme poverty?

Since the departmental merger, it has been difficult to determine if the FCDO’s policies are focused on alleviating poverty as we are still waiting for the international development strategy and the 2021 final statistics for international development which will illustrate ODA allocations towards sectors and regions since the merger.

Analysis from the Real Aid Index demonstrated that DFID scored very highly across all our indicators on poverty focus, effectiveness and transparency whereas the FCO did not fare as well[17]. DFID had ‘ending extreme poverty’ as one of its core objectives, and it spent 50% of its bilateral ODA in LDCs compared to the FCO which only spent 13% of its bilateral ODA in LDCs. As noted in a previous question, DFID was much better at targeting for gender than the FCO. DFID in 2018 marked 68% of its department’s objectives as significant and principled, whereas the FCO marked 47% of its objectives as significant and principled. We hope the FCDO will continue to incorporate the poverty focus objectives that DFID upheld so well.