Department for International Development accused of political expediency and ignoring recommended review procedures
The UK's decision to end bilateral aid to India and South Africa by 2015 was "neither methodical nor transparent, but related to short-term political pressures", a group of MPs has said.
Justine Greening, the international development secretary, announced in November 2012 that Britain would end direct aid to India in 2015. Six months later, she said Britain's development programme in South Africa would also come to an end in 2015, a decision that drew a rebuke from the South African government.
The move to phase out aid to these countries, defined by the World Bank as middle-income economies, followed a review by the Department for International Development (DfID) of its multilateral and bilateral aid programmes in 2010 that resulted in Britain curtailing its bilateral aid programmes to 27 out of 43 countries. The number rose to 28 when South Sudan became independent in 2011.
In justifying the move to end aid to India and South Africa, Greening told the International Development Committee that if Britain's development spending was to continue having the biggest possible impact, it should focus on countries that "have higher incidences [of poverty], less capability and generally bleaker prospects for the poor".
By way of example of continuing aid to a middle-income country, Greening cited Pakistan as having less capacity to address extreme poverty than India. She also said it was in clear British interests to ensure stability in Pakistan. The committee, however, questioned whether DfID spending in Pakistan would achieve desired goals.
"We recommend that, in any future bilateral aid review, DfID spending reflect what it is able to achieve in increasing security. Large sums should not be spent just in the hope of increasing and stability, but be based on what it is possible to deliver," said the committee report on Wednesday.
Pakistan is the largest recipient of British aid. DfID plans to increase bilateral aid to Pakistan to £446m in 2014-15, from £267m in 2012-13, but the development committee said in a report last year that aid should only be increased if the Pakistani government made greater efforts to increase tax revenues.
The committee accepted the rationale for sending aid to some middle-income countries and not others, but expressed concerns about the timing of the decisions on India and South Africa.
"We do not dispute that the bilateral aid review was a robust process," the report says, "but the secretary has not convinced us that the announcements to end bilateral programmes in India and South Africa were in accordance with the principles and process established by the bilateral aid review (BAR). They were made just 18 months and two years respectively after the publication of the BAR country summaries and appear ad hoc. We reiterate our recent recommendation: decisions to end a bilateral aid programme or to start a new one should be made only following a bilateral aid review, except in exceptional cases such as South Sudan."
The UK's aid programme to South Africa is worth £19m a year. Support has recently focused on supporting businesses and reducing the maternal mortality rate. Pretoria reacted angrily when DfID announced its decision to phase out aid, describing it as a unilateral announcement that was tantamount to redefining the relationship. In May, Pravin Gordhan, the South African finance minister, said during a visit to London that the decision looked like "there was an intention to demonstrate some kind of fiscal probity using South African assistance as a political tool".
The UK has ringfenced the aid budget, which is set to increase to £11.9bn this year in line with its commitment to meet the 0.7% of gross national income aid target. The decision to protect the aid budget at a time of austerity is unpopular with Tory backbenchers and the rightwing press.
Sir Malcolm Bruce, chairman of the committee, said the decisions on South Africa and India had "come out of the blue" and appeared to be a quick response to media pressure.
"There was a lack of process on the decisions," he said. "Both were told that aid levels would continue for five years, but then DfID decided not to follow that through … funding to 2015 is falling at a faster rate than previously agreed."
Jim Murphy, Labour's international development spokesman, said: "This report shows that ministers have failed to make strategic decisions about how UK aid is best spent. The result is that South Africa is understandably offended. This was a decision that had little to do with Southern African poverty and much more to do with David Cameron's clumsy attempts to deal with political problems at home."
Greening's decision to end aid to India – which came to £300m in 2012 – was criticised by the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank as a move designed to placate Tory backbenchers instead of combating poverty.
A DfID spokesman said: "The decisions to close our aid programmes in South Africa and India are right and the committee does not disagree with this. These decisions clearly follow on from the government's own aid review published in 2011 which identified both countries as on the path to transition. As countries successfully develop DfID will continue to ensure that our aid remains targeted on the poorest countries where support is most needed." Reported by guardian.co.uk 7 minutes ago.
The UK's decision to end bilateral aid to India and South Africa by 2015 was "neither methodical nor transparent, but related to short-term political pressures", a group of MPs has said.
Justine Greening, the international development secretary, announced in November 2012 that Britain would end direct aid to India in 2015. Six months later, she said Britain's development programme in South Africa would also come to an end in 2015, a decision that drew a rebuke from the South African government.
The move to phase out aid to these countries, defined by the World Bank as middle-income economies, followed a review by the Department for International Development (DfID) of its multilateral and bilateral aid programmes in 2010 that resulted in Britain curtailing its bilateral aid programmes to 27 out of 43 countries. The number rose to 28 when South Sudan became independent in 2011.
In justifying the move to end aid to India and South Africa, Greening told the International Development Committee that if Britain's development spending was to continue having the biggest possible impact, it should focus on countries that "have higher incidences [of poverty], less capability and generally bleaker prospects for the poor".
By way of example of continuing aid to a middle-income country, Greening cited Pakistan as having less capacity to address extreme poverty than India. She also said it was in clear British interests to ensure stability in Pakistan. The committee, however, questioned whether DfID spending in Pakistan would achieve desired goals.
"We recommend that, in any future bilateral aid review, DfID spending reflect what it is able to achieve in increasing security. Large sums should not be spent just in the hope of increasing and stability, but be based on what it is possible to deliver," said the committee report on Wednesday.
Pakistan is the largest recipient of British aid. DfID plans to increase bilateral aid to Pakistan to £446m in 2014-15, from £267m in 2012-13, but the development committee said in a report last year that aid should only be increased if the Pakistani government made greater efforts to increase tax revenues.
The committee accepted the rationale for sending aid to some middle-income countries and not others, but expressed concerns about the timing of the decisions on India and South Africa.
"We do not dispute that the bilateral aid review was a robust process," the report says, "but the secretary has not convinced us that the announcements to end bilateral programmes in India and South Africa were in accordance with the principles and process established by the bilateral aid review (BAR). They were made just 18 months and two years respectively after the publication of the BAR country summaries and appear ad hoc. We reiterate our recent recommendation: decisions to end a bilateral aid programme or to start a new one should be made only following a bilateral aid review, except in exceptional cases such as South Sudan."
The UK's aid programme to South Africa is worth £19m a year. Support has recently focused on supporting businesses and reducing the maternal mortality rate. Pretoria reacted angrily when DfID announced its decision to phase out aid, describing it as a unilateral announcement that was tantamount to redefining the relationship. In May, Pravin Gordhan, the South African finance minister, said during a visit to London that the decision looked like "there was an intention to demonstrate some kind of fiscal probity using South African assistance as a political tool".
The UK has ringfenced the aid budget, which is set to increase to £11.9bn this year in line with its commitment to meet the 0.7% of gross national income aid target. The decision to protect the aid budget at a time of austerity is unpopular with Tory backbenchers and the rightwing press.
Sir Malcolm Bruce, chairman of the committee, said the decisions on South Africa and India had "come out of the blue" and appeared to be a quick response to media pressure.
"There was a lack of process on the decisions," he said. "Both were told that aid levels would continue for five years, but then DfID decided not to follow that through … funding to 2015 is falling at a faster rate than previously agreed."
Jim Murphy, Labour's international development spokesman, said: "This report shows that ministers have failed to make strategic decisions about how UK aid is best spent. The result is that South Africa is understandably offended. This was a decision that had little to do with Southern African poverty and much more to do with David Cameron's clumsy attempts to deal with political problems at home."
Greening's decision to end aid to India – which came to £300m in 2012 – was criticised by the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank as a move designed to placate Tory backbenchers instead of combating poverty.
A DfID spokesman said: "The decisions to close our aid programmes in South Africa and India are right and the committee does not disagree with this. These decisions clearly follow on from the government's own aid review published in 2011 which identified both countries as on the path to transition. As countries successfully develop DfID will continue to ensure that our aid remains targeted on the poorest countries where support is most needed." Reported by guardian.co.uk 7 minutes ago.