Development Initiatives

"Making every penny count" - Tory party fringe meeting

The fringe meeting 'Making Every Penny Count: Transparency and Accountability in International Aid' at the Conservative Party Conference, Manchester was attended by people from both development and non development backgrounds which led to a number of interesting discussions.

Owen Barder, aidinfo

Aid works, but it could work better. There isn’t consensus on what aid is - corruption, duplication, inefficiency and if it works - such as Moyo’s book ‘Dead Aid’. Owen, who lives in Addis Ababa, said that he sees aid work every day and that aid does not determine development, countries determine their own development.

Aid needs to move into a post bureaucratic age (from the Tory Green Paper). Development has been stuck in a top down planning mode, led by policies and agencies from Washington or London which have been untouched by reforms to public service. The Green Paper outlines that “we will treat people who are poor with respect and dignity – and empower them to become masters and owners of the international development system, not just passive recipients of it” – however, Owen does not think we are currently equipped to do this. The Tory initiative of ‘My Aid’ is a good way to engage with the tax payer which is fundamental in gaining support for aid transparency.

Transparency is at the heart of a post bureaucratic age and must focus on information (such as where aid is being spent) and understand the needs and outputs of the intended beneficiaries.

Karin Christiansen, Publish What You Fund

Transparency is important; it won’t create more efficient aid but it will contribute towards it. There are key players who will benefit from increased aid transparency:

• Tax payers will understand where their money is being spent
• Donors will understand own their spending and will be able to compare it to other donors
• CSO, parliamentarians and civil society will be able to hold donors to account

Karin argued that we need to decide what information should be published and how we should evaluate and monitor and that information needs to comparable and timely. This could be achieved through International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).

Warren Nyamugasira, African Monitor

Two perceptions of aid:

• Assistance In Distress – respond to people who send out a stress signal
• Assistance Into Demand – create capacity to be more productive

African Monitor follows commitments made in 2005 and welcomes the UKs commitment to 0.7% by 2013. However, there is a difference between how much is committed and how much arrives at country level and between how much arrives at country level and how much filters down to those at community level – those in distress. If we can establish how much money arrives at country level and how much is for beneficiaries then this could potentially be revolutionary. People in distress for protracted periods don’t have a long term perspective so we need governments to deliver on their commitments.

Andrew Mitchell, Shadow Secretary for International Development

Andrew said that we are all looking at aid in the same way: maintain money and make it more effective. The Tories are committed to 0.7% because of the moral case of discrepancies in wealth and the national case of conflict prevention – conflict situations spread disease, people and violence. Andrew argued that we need transparency and independent accountability to allow economic development and to reduce conflict. Taxpayers should know that their money is being spent well, for this reason the Tories will focus on outputs and outcomes whereas in the past Labour has focused on inputs. The focus on outputs will involve putting information in the public domain in a language people understand. In addition, the Tories will give budget support (money will go to budgets not just projects) and 5% will be allocated to monitor budget support, which will be done by civil society.

Questions

1. Provide examples of where aid works for the development of a country? Andrew argued that in some areas of Rwanda malaria has significantly reduced; 7 million children are in school in Afghanistan and there has been the eradication of small pox. Karin discussed the impact of aid in Rwanda in 1999 where, without budget support, the economy could have collapsed. Warren echoed Karin’s view on the impact of aid at country level. The Ugandan economy post Idi Amin was on the brink of collapse with 70% of Uganda’s national economy dependent on external resources. The economy initially needed the 70% to enable it to run on its own capacity. Uganda’s economy is now dependent on 30-40% of external resources.

2. Who will measure the outcomes? Andrew argued that accessible information and downward accountability is vital. Outcomes will be measured through independent evaluations - reporting to a public accounts committee, for example. However, Owen disagrees with the Green Paper that the “best kind of evaluation is independent”. Independent evaluation is important but the best kind of evaluation comes from beneficiaries, we need feedback from beneficiaries to be able to evaluate and in addition beneficiaries will need to be able to access information

3. Flexible approach to aid: there are more Malawian doctors in Manchester than there are in Malawi and more British doctors in Malawi than Malawian doctors Warren argued that the movement of doctors can be regarded as positive, for example remittances are a valuable source of income which contributes to the development of some countries and between 2007-2008 remittances ($40 billion) exceeded aid ($30 billion). Karin argued that some studies suggest that doctors returning to their original country aren’t necessarily successful – in that they are not necessarily happy or better doctors there. Andrew said that British doctors who have international experience are often better doctors

4. What is at stake if Britain didn’t give aid to Africa, what would Britain lose if aid was stopped?

Warren argued that one of the reasons the UK gives money to Africa is to protect national security and to benefit from growing markets.

Owen closed the session by reemphasising the importance of aid in a post bureaucratic age. Owen provided the example of how money is channelled from the US to Ethiopia for HIV/Aids programmes although this is not a problem in Ethiopia and instead Ethiopia needs money for sexual reproductive health. The reason Ethiopia is getting funds for HIV/Aids programmes is because decisions have been made in London or Washington and not by the community – the real beneficiaries of aid. Owen argued that we need to empower communities to make decisions on what they need and how money is spent.