Bringing home overseas development aid
Civitas, 9 December 2010
The UK is threatening to halt funding earmarked for the EU’s international development programmes because allegations of corruption and fraud continue to plague the EU’s development aid spending.
Whilst the UK Coalition Government appears to be taking its commitment to overseas development assistance (ODA) rather seriously (it was one of the few areas ‘ring fenced’ from the draconic public spending cuts), it seems that EU level ODA spending still leaves much to be desired. As the fifth annual European Development Days summit drew to a earlier this week, Andrew Mitchell, the UK’s International Development Secretary, announced that he is prepared to block UK cooperation on the EU’s aid budget, in an effort to force EU reform. He was joined by the Swedish Development Minister, Gunilla Carlsson, in calling for more transparency and less bureaucracy at the EU aid level.
The displays of incompetence that have been revealed in EU aid spending are disheartening. An article in the Telegraph notes that one in five of EU fraud enquiries are directed at this segment of the EU budget, with 40% of projects being delayed due to mistakes made by the EU.
With the economic recession biting hard into national budgets many EU states have seen their national ODA budgets slashed. In the UK, the Coalition Government’s decision to uphold the commitment for 0.7% of GDP to be spent on ODA by 2013 (2 years earlier than the target set by the UN in 1970) has not escaped criticism, particularly by those concerned about other national services that will have to suffer the spending cuts instead. However, the Government seems serious about effective reform, with Andrew Mitchell set to supervise the overhaul of the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). The Coalition’s plan to revamp the UK’s international aid budget includes: cutting administration costs, reducing bilateral aid to larger economies and redirecting aid away from low priority programmes (such as the UK Development Awareness Fund) to projects that tackle poverty more directly.
According to DFID, £1,201 million out of the total UK ODA budget (£7,365 million) went to the EU institutions in 2009. It is not in the least bit surprising, therefore, that Andrew Mitchell, at the cusp of restructuring and streamlining the UK’s aid spending, will likewise push the EU to reform, or withdraw the UK’s contribution to the EU aid budget to be administered more effectively back in the UK.
The EU frequently makes grand statements about its role in international development, but it appears that its actions are not always as strong as its rhetoric. Whilst it is full of good intentions, the EU’s aid budget remains opaque and bureaucratically cumbersome, and hampers the EU from achieving the results it should be capable of fostering (it is the world’s largest aid donor). The EU needs to either implement widespread reform of its aid budget, or consider relinquishing this spending back to national governments.