Submission to the International Development Committee

Future of UK aid and development assistance

Introduction

The Small International Development Charities Network (SIDCN) represents over 2,400 UK-based small charities advancing sustainable development and social justice globally. SIDCN supports the Committee’s position that maintaining the current, administratively heavy approach with reduced funding is unlikely to be effective or represent value for money, either factual or perceived. The scheduled reduction of ODA to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 demands that every pound spent is maximally effective and strategically targeted. The empowerment of civil society organisations (CSOs) that are in-country or have direct ties to the communities is the viable path to deliver high-impact, poverty-focused development in this new context, and meet the Committee's core objectives. Despite their pivotal role, small charities face systemic funding constraints and insufficient governmental recognition. SIDCN is a member of the UK Alliance, which is a partnership of Bond UK, SIDA, SWIDN, CADA NI and Hub Cymru Africa.

We also draw on the evidence and recommendations of Scotland’s International Development Alliance (SIDA), whose recent policy paper “From Talk to Transformation”, calls for a justice-based, feminist, anti-racist, and decolonial approach to UK aid. SIDA’s work highlights the urgent need to shift power to local actors, reframe aid as an act of justice rather than charity, and ensure that UK policy is coherent, inclusive, and accountable.

Responses to select key questions for the inquiry:

1. What needs to change to realise the goal of moving from paternalistic models and relationships to partnerships?

Moving from a paternalistic model to one of genuine partnership requires a fundamental overhaul of power dynamics, risk assessment, and relationship tenure. The paternalistic ‘donor-recipient’ model is characterised by rigid contracts, prescriptive programmatic control exercised from London, and short-term, output-driven metrics with a narrow focus. Too often these lend to quantitative data rather than qualitative metrics which true partnership work drives. True partnership, conversely, is built on mutual trust, shared, limited or no decision-making role, and long-term investment in local institutional capacity.

The shift requires three core changes in FCDO behaviour and funding mechanisms.

Reframing Risk and Due Diligence: The current zero-tolerance approach creates crushing administrative burdens that exclude smaller, efficient partners. The FCDO must recognise that the greatest risk is failing to deliver sustainable change due to excessive bureaucracy and lack of trust. Due diligence should be scaled appropriately to the size of the grant and the track record of the charity, trusting their established, relational oversight of local partners. Proportionate risk and due diligence mechanisms would benefit all actors involved.
Shared Control and Respect for Local Expertise: The FCDO must move beyond merely consulting local actors to formally transferring programmatic and financial control. For FCDO this could include easier routes for local organisations and governments to access support, such as expertise sharing or funding for programmes. It means accepting designs for demand-driven programmes by in-country CSOs/NGOs that accept deviation in a proportionate way from established FCDO templates.
Long-Term, Predictable Funding: Short, competitive cycles (1-3 years) perpetuate dependency. Partnership requires multi-year (5+ years), predictable funding commitments. This enables local CSOs, NGOs, and statutory agencies or local others to undertake strategic planning, invest in staff, and build institutional resilience.

This shift will ultimately build more robust, self-reliant ecosystems in partner countries, accelerating the UK's stated goal of helping countries move beyond aid dependency.

3. How should UK ODA best be deployed to empower local delivery of aid and decision making around development? What are the opportunities and challenges with making this a reality?

Empowering local delivery is key to sustainable development. UK ODA mechanisms must actively transfer or share programmatic authority.

Opportunities in Localisation Supported by Smalls

Deep Localisation and Ownership: Interventions are culturally relevant and responsive to the marginalised. Impact is defined by the community, not the donor. Local ownership facilitates development gains to be sustained post-funding.
Effective Capacity Transfer: A focus on mentoring, leveraging and strengthening existing local CSOs’ expertise, financial management, governance, and technical expertise. This relational approach ensures profound and lasting progress. Small budgets can go a long way where the focus is the funding of the exchange, such as workshops, training, mentoring and support – these can be a very cost-effective way to enable, strengthen and scale local development.
Reaching the Hardest to Reach: Local CSOs have unparalleled access and credibility in remote or sensitive areas, ensuring vital last-mile delivery and fulfilling the promise of ‘leaving no one behind.’

Systemic Challenges Preventing Effective Localisation

Inaccessible Funding Mechanisms: Funding streams favour complex, high-volume grants and large NGOs. Onerous administrative demands, designed for multi-million-pound programmes, unfairly penalise the efficiency and agility of small organisations, usually excluding them entirely.
Disparity in Value for Money (VfM) Assessment: Current metrics reward expenditure scale over long-term relational value, sustainability, and low overheads. They fail to adequately recognise the value of capacity-strengthening.
Erosion through Intermediaries: Cascading sub-granting (FCDO to large INGOs to national NGOs to local CSOs) introduces multiple layers of fees, significantly reducing the frontline allocation and diminishing local partners' control. This is a common consequence of large, framework-style contracting. There needs to be balance that connects efficient distribution and oversight for FCDO. Learnings could be gathered from the ROLE UK programme as an efficient and proportionate programme funded by FCDO.

Potential Recommendations for Policy Shift

To future-proof UK ODA and secure inclusive, effective, and sustainable development, SIDCN recommend the following policy shifts.

Honesty on Where Aid is spent: Nearly a third of the ODA budget is spent on asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. If the government is keen on communicating VfM to the General Public, splitting out the income spent in the UK would be a good first step.
Streamline Grant Requirements: Drastically simplify grant application and reporting requirements for smaller grants (under £250k), recognising the high administrative burden is counterproductive to efficiency and the goal of localisation. Focus on oversight of outcomes rather than compliance of processes.
Increase and Ring-Fence Funding to Small Location Projects: Reinstate funding streams like the Small Charities Challenge Fund with clearer timelines and sufficient resources to meet demand. We encourage to think about proportionate systems to the funds and outcomes sought with measures that encourage long-term, gradual change and are not just numbers but impact. An idea that could be explored is to have high commissions and embassies having smaller budgets for in-country high-impact programs led by small organisations embedded in the communities.
Develop a Target to Operationalise a Commitment to Localisation: Commit to a time-bound and measurable target (e.g., 25% by 2030) for the proportion of ODA directed to in-country Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), and small UK charities formally recognised as a primary, fast-track delivery channel for capacity transfer.
Adopt a Localisation-Focused VfM: Implement a nuanced VfM framework that formally measures and rewards indicators of genuine partnership, sustainability, and the successful transfer of control and capacity to local partners over the raw scale of expenditure.
Establish a Dedicated Localisation & Partnership Unit: Designate a high-level unit within FCDO to simplify due diligence, facilitate direct dialogue, and co-design flexible programming specifically with small and in-country partners, to reframe the default large-contracting approach.

Conclusion

We urge the International Development Committee to mandate a fundamental shift in how the UK delivers ODA. Empowering local civil society, through the strategic support of small UK development charities, is a secure route to ensuring the UK’s reduced aid budget delivers impact, upholds genuine partnership, aligns with taxpayer expectations, and effectively serves the world’s most vulnerable populations. We are keen to support and facilitate small CSOs and the Committee in these vital reforms.