London: The UK must be prepared to suspend or even cancel aid programmes to conflict-affected states if they flout agreements or refuse to engage in efforts to increase transparency and accountability, a group of MPs said in a report on Thursday. Members of the international development committee said the British government is right to boost aid to "fragile states", such as Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), but should use its influence to press for improvement in governance.
Putting a greater emphasis on fragile states, the Department for International Development (DfID) will spend 30% of official development assistance (ODA) – about £3.4bn – in these states by 2015.
At a recent conference on aid effectiveness, held in Busan, South Korea, the UK was a principal advocate for a "new deal" for fragile states that will focus aid on building up security and justice systems in conflict-ravaged countries such as the DRC and South Sudan.
While the committee was generally sympathetic to government efforts, it warned of the risks in delivering aid in difficult environments where fraud and corruption are rife.
"There are obvious benefits of providing aid to fragile states. It is, after all, cheaper to prevent conflicts, than to deal with wars and their aftermath," said Malcolm Bruce, chairman of the committee. "Nevertheless, there are considerable risks in spending aid money in conflict-scarred states, and the government must be frank and open about this if it wants to convince the public that its approach is the right one, both morally and politically."
On specific cases, the committee notes that Rwanda has made remarkable progress in forging unity and in reaching the millennium development goals, 17 years after the genocide. But it also notes the concerns expressed by groups such as Human Rights Watch that restrictions are being placed on political expression and freedom of the press. The UK will provide £90m to Kigali in 2014-15, making it Rwanda's biggest donor. Britain also has a 10-year memorandum of understanding with the government that includes consideration of human rights and responsible government.
The committee recommended that Britain set out indicators or benchmarks in its budget support agreements about what type of improvements it expects to see in areas such as freedom of speech and of association over the remaining period covered by the memorandum. "This might include ensuring human rights organisations can operate freely and improving freedom of the press," it said.
The UK also provides budget support for Ethiopia, where DfID plans to spend an average of £331m annually until 2015, making it one of the biggest recipients of British aid. Ethiopia, where a court recently convicted two Swedish journalists in a much-criticised trial, also has a poor reputation for human rights.
"DfID should set out specific governance conditions under which it will provide support, and any under which it will be withdrawn," said the report. "It should also, as a matter of course, set out clearly how its aid budget for each country is distributed between multilateral and bilateral spending and the reasons for this distribution."
In the DRC, where DfID is investing £790m between 2010 and 2015, the committee said government measures to regulate the notoriously corrupt mining industry, where proceeds have been used to fund conflict and criminality, remain insufficient. The committee called on DfID to set out clearly for the DRC what the UK expects in terms of transparency and accountability in the mineral sector and to withdraw assistance if these expectations are not met. It also recommended standalone projects for reducing and responding to violence against women and girls, a particularly serious problem in eastern DRC, and investing at least 10% of its budget on grassroots community building programmes.
Bruce said the committee was not suggesting that DfID cancel any programmes at this stage. "But what we are saying is that Britain cannot sign up unconditionally to provide aid," he said. "While we support this commitment to fragile and post-conflict states, it should not be an open-ended guarantee."
Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, said: "This report says the coalition government is right to focus aid on fragile and conflict-affected states, to tackle crises before they begin. We make absolutely clear to countries that transparency and good governance are vital, and we are prepared to withhold funding through governments when our standards are not met, as we have done in Malawi."
- Background on the IDC report process
The Department for International Development (DFID) is increasing its focus on fragile states and will spend 30% of Official Development Assistance (ODA)—approximately £3,414 million—in these states by 2015. DFID is investing £790 million in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 2010-15. There is a long history of mineral wealth being used to fund and perpetuate conflict and criminality in the DRC. The Government of DRC has taken some measures to regulate the industry; however, it is clear that these remain insufficient. The Committee calls on DFID to set out clearly for the Government of the DRC what the UK expects in terms of transparency and accountability in the mineral sector and withdraw assistance if these expectations are not met.
The Government of DRC has continued to permit secret sales of assets and First Quantum has as yet had no redress. The risks of not properly managing this sector are that development gains made elsewhere will be forgone. DFID must set out clearly for the Government of the DRC what it expects in terms of transparency and accountability in the mineral sector and withdraw assistance if these expectations are not met. Kabila is putting the aid relationship at risk by signing secret mining deals and with allegations of election fraud.
Many of the fragile countries where DFID is increasing its funding achieved low scores on the Transparency International Perception of Corruption Index. In countries where fraud and corruption are rife, it is not convincing to argue that DFID’s programmes are unaffected.
Comments from the Chair
Chair of the Committee, the Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce, said: “There are obvious benefits of providing aid to fragile states. It is, after all, cheaper to prevent conflicts, than to deal with wars and their aftermath. Nevertheless, there are considerable risks in spending aid money in conflict scarred states and the Government must be frank and open about this if it wants to convince the public that its approach is the right one, both morally and politically. In countries where fraud and corruption are rife , DFID will not always be able to mitigate against this adequately—especially where it sub-contracts delivery of its programmes to third parties. This means it may not be able to guarantee value for money for every pound it spends.”
Recommendations
DFID already allocates a significant part of its assistance to improving governance in fragile and conflict-affected states. However, the reports sets out a number of recommendations for improvement. The MPs urge DFID to set out specific governance conditions under which it will provide direct budget support to fragile states, and any under which it will be withdrawn and apply these consistently. They also recommend that DFID invest more in community-led local initiatives which respond to community priorities and give communities more confidence to hold their governments to account.
- Case study : Rwanda
Rwanda is heavily dependent on aid which provides 45% of government expenditure. The UK will provide £90 million to Rwanda in 2014-15. While Rwanda has made progress in reducing poverty, concerns have been expressed about its human rights record and the lack of political pluralism.
The Committee urges the UK Government to use its position as the largest bilateral donor to Rwanda to insist on improvements to the country’s governance. The report recommends that DFID set out clear benchmarks for the period up to 2015 requiring improvements in areas such as freedom of speech and association. For example, ensuring human rights organisations can operate without censure and improving freedom of the press.
Malcolm Bruce MP added: “Ministers should use the UK’s leverage as a major donor to encourage the Rwandan Government to increase political freedoms.”
- Case study: the Democratic Republic of Congo
The Committee expressed concerns about high levels of violence against women and girls in the DRC. It says that DFID should give greater priority to tackling this in its programme and include the reduction of violence against women in its results framework for the DRC.
Mr Bruce said:
DFID rightly focuses on women and girls in its programmes. In the DRC it should set up stand alone programmes for violence against women and girls including care for survivors and programmes promoting behavioural change. We want to see improved outcomes reflected in DFID’s results.
The UN peacekeeping force in the East, MONUSCO, has faced formidable challenges since it began operations in 1999. However the Committee asks whether the mandate for the force is still appropriate. In particular it recommends a more mobile and agile force which can quickly respond to incidents and take a more proactive approach to apprehending perpetrators of violence.
- Readers can access the reports (below) from the link, here.
- Report: Working effectively in fragile & conflict-affected states: DRC & Rwanda
- Inquiry: Working effectively in fragile & conflict-affected states: DRC & Rwanda
- International Development Committee
