International Development Select Committee Inquiry: Extreme Poverty and the Sustainable Development Goals
Response from VSO (Voluntary Service Overseas)
Introduction
VSO is an international development agency with over 60 years’ experience of addressing poverty and marginalisation through our unique approach of working through international, national and community volunteers. By bringing together different perspectives, and working at all levels of society – from communities to government ministries – volunteers can build trust and provide the right support to ensure that national development efforts deliver lasting change. VSO has a particular focus on social inclusion, social accountability and resilience – seeing the absence of these as fundamental causes of marginalisation and vulnerability. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry.
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?
The Covid-19 pandemic has led to the first rise in extreme poverty in a generation, with the UN estimating that between 119 – 124 million people were pushed back into extreme poverty in 2020[1]. In view of this, the global poverty rate is projected to be 7% by 2030, meaning that the targets of SDG 1 are likely to be missed. The FCDO should therefore ensure that its strategy is geared towards addressing and reversing extreme poverty, as this task is more urgent than ever in the wake of the trends caused by the pandemic.
At VSO, we take the view that the primary purpose of UK aid spending should be to help deliver on the globally agreed targets set within the Sustainable Development Goals, and as an NGO which works across health, education and livelihoods, we recognise the interdependency between the SDGs. Achieving target 1.1 of SDG 1 will only be possible with the achievement of other SDGs, particularly SDGs 2, 5, 8, 13 and 17.
Our volunteers, partners and the people with and for whom we work (our ‘primary actors’) see first-hand how UK aid can be an effective tool in reducing poverty and increasing opportunities for people around the world. We take the view that the role of UK aid in poverty reduction should not be a transactional or top-down relationship, but a way of working through partnerships and networks to ensure that local communities have ownership of development work, and that it is long-term and self-sustaining.
In order to ensure that our aid spending is being targeted at the achievement of the SDGs, we take the view that the UK’s international aid spending should continue to adhere to OECD-DAC spending rules and remain targeted at the economic development and welfare of developing countries, and not primarily used as a tool of political or economic influence for the UK.
Looking at the breakdown of spend in the UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) Allocations in the Written Statement to Parliament on 21 April 2022[2], we noted that despite the description of poverty reduction as a ‘core priority’ for the government, it was not included within the descriptions of thematic allocations, and that there was no reference within the Written Statement to addressing inequalities, despite this being closely linked to Goal 1 and the focus of Goal 10, which is to ‘Reduce Inequalities within and among countries’[3].
We therefore share the concerns expressed in the International Development Select Committee interim report, “Effectiveness of UK Aid: Interim findings”[4], which found that the UK’s aid spending has seen a greater focus since 2014 on middle-income countries at the expense of the LDCs (least developed countries), due in part by the re-allocation of ODA spend to non-DFID departments, which have focused more on middle-income countries.
As the UK’s international development strategy is merged with the its wider foreign policy, we support the International Development Select Committee’s recommendation to establish a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State or another decision-maker within the new department can make a wider strategic decision about the appropriate percentage of aid being spent overall in LDCs, as this would ensure that UK aid spending is being targeted at those living in extreme poverty, and is being deployed to help fulfil the targets of SDG 1.
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 frequency of natural disasters is increasing due to climate change, and at VSO, our volunteers are working within and alongside communities who are already experiencing impacts and losses from climate change. As climate change disproportionately impacts the most marginalised people, climate change mitigation and adaptation work therefore needs to take an inclusive approach, understanding and identifying the specific risks, vulnerabilities and priorities of marginalised groups. Investment in supporting communities to plan for and manage the risks they face from climate change and other economic, social or environmental upheaval is critical to reduce the risk to those who are most vulnerable.
Globally, the majority of disaster survivors are first reached following a natural disaster by a volunteer, many of whom will have been trained by organisations like VSO. These volunteers often remain active in supporting recovery of communities long after emergency response, which is critical in reducing vulnerability to secondary disasters. However, recent budget cuts have limited the ability of organisations like VSO to train national volunteers and support national capability to respond to natural disasters, and to help communities rebuild.
We would urge the FCDO to recognise the roles of volunteers in responding immediately following natural disasters, and the need to support communities to recover and rebuild after the emergency response in order to reduce vulnerability to secondary disasters.
We also believe the FCDO should put more into loss and damage funding in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change on the most vulnerable, and focus not only on the immediate aftermath of disasters but on advance planning to mitigate risk, as well as the long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction needed to get communities back on their feet. At a global and national level, the FCDO must also promote policies that protect biodiversity, the protection of ecosystems, renewable energy and a circular economy, including clean energy.
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?
Alongside many other British NGOs, VSO has experienced cuts to our budget due to the recent UK government decision to cut 0.7% to 0.5%. As was widely reported at the time, it does not appear that there was a robust and consistent method for deciding which programmes were going to be cut, or an assessment on how the cuts will impact on the levels of extreme poverty within the countries where UK aid is deployed[5].
With support from the UK Government, over the past 3 years our Volunteering for Development (V4D) programme has been able improve access to basic health and education services, and to provide support towards sustainable livelihoods for 4 million people across the world. Following the end of the first phase of the V4D grant in March 2021, we received a one-year extension to this grant from the FCDO, worth £9 million, which represented a 45% cut to our UK government funding in a year.
Although we have been able to ‘do more with less’ through adapting some of our programming, nonetheless our data shows that while our average reach of people was 1.4 million each year during the first 3 years of the Volunteering for Development grant, in 2021 following the cuts we were only able to reach 0.5 million people, meaning that up to 1.5 million people could lose access to services provided by VSO through our volunteering for development model.
The people we work with are some of the world’s poorest people, and eight of the countries[6] where we run UK government-funded programmes are in the ‘bottom billion’ - the countries identified by economist Paul Collier as home to the world’s poorest billion people[7]. Unfortunately, this means that despite our best efforts, the levels of cuts we have experienced from the FCDO will necessarily impact on our ability as an NGO to reach those living in extreme poverty, and will therefore impact on the UK government’s contribution to the achievement of SDG 1.
Repeated short-term funding extensions of this nature mean also we cannot guarantee the future of our funding on a long-term scale to our partner organisations, and the same will be true for other development organisations.
The recent round of aid cuts has demonstrated the need for more flexible funding for FCDO-funded NGOs, so that they can adapt to changes on a short and medium- term basis.
How the FCDO can play a more effective part in the eradication of poverty as a convener, thought leader and investor.
The UK’s development work exists within the wider context of Britain's diplomatic strategy, and is one of the biggest contributors to our influence and soft power overseas. DFID was described as a “development superpower”[8], helping to make the UK a global leader in aid and development on the world stage, on a range of development issues including poverty eradication. As the FCDO begins to flesh out the details of its wider development strategy, it should ensure that the UK’s role as a convener and thought leader on international development is maintained within the new structures of the FCDO, and that the development expertise built up within DFID is built upon in the new department, and not lost.
Our commitment to spending 0.7% of our GDP on international development gave us credibility on the world stage, and allowed us to use our leverage with other high-income countries to push for them to increase their own contributions to international development. We would therefore urge the government to return to this commitment as soon as the fiscal situation allows, and preferably by the financial year 2023/ 2024. This will not only increase the UK’s contributions to international development but will also allow us to continue making the case for higher contributions from other countries. The UK must also continue to champion human rights and to support open societies around the globe.
VSO is a global leader in volunteering for development, whose expertise is sought out by multilateral agencies and national governments around the world, and our partnership with the FCDO has been vital to the achievement of this. The FCDO should recognise that its support for VSO has helped to maintain the UK’s position as a thought leader in volunteering for development, and has supported VSO to act as a convenor for volunteering for development organisations around the world, for example through our participation in IVCO and our leadership on The Global Standard for Volunteering for Development.[9]
How has the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development affected the UK’s approach to extreme poverty?
With the merger between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, we take the view that there is a potential risk with a shift to the achievement of development indicators outside the provision of basic services such as health, education and livelihoods support which may impact on the UK’s ability to tackle extreme poverty across the countries where we provide development aid.
The UK’s global leadership on aid and development is predicated on the difference we make to the lives of the poorest and most marginalised including in fragile contexts. While this is an important element of UK soft power, it will be compromised by a sense that the UK’s priorities for aid and development are shifting to a focus on political and trading relationships, rather than focusing on eradicating extreme poverty and the achievement of the SDGs across the countries where UK aid spent.