Last month the UK government set out their revised approach to international development, and the overriding word to describe it is 'contradiction'. Zambia's High Commissioner, Ms Macenje Mazoka, put it best when saying the UK risks spreading mistrust and needed to decide “what kind of friend it wanted to be to the world”.
The reasons behind that warning are worth unpacking.
Judging a book by its cover
The front cover of the UK’s revised approach looks reasonable. Strong commitments to support the world’s lowest income countries through the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA), and the African Development Bank’s African Development Fund (ADF) are welcome. However, when you read past the cover, it is hard not to have cynicism. Overall levels of UK ODA, which are focused internationally, will be the lowest ever on record. The optics aren’t great when your admin costs are set to be higher than your regional programmable allocations to Africa. And when you claim to be focusing on supporting those most in need with your international support, yet the most protected allocations continue to be UK overseas territories and institutions. That is of course the UK’s prerogative, but again, the optics of these decisions to countries you want to strengthen partnerships with, are not ideal.
Don’t write cheques that can’t be cashed
Following the UK’s decision to slash its ODA budget, there has been an inescapable pivot towards positioning the country as a global leader on international development. When there has been an opportunity to be front and centre, they have quickly put their hand up. Whether that is co-chairing the World Bank’s current shareholder review, hosting respective Global Fund and African Development Fund replenishments, initiating a UK global partnership conference, or taking on the G20 Presidency in 2027. But standing up means being counted. For example, for all the talk of “increasing the voice and representation for low-income and vulnerable countries”, there is very little sign that the UK’s leadership role on the World Bank’s shareholder review will deliver any tangible change in voice or representation. In addition, as we look to the future, the UK wants to continue its self-styled role as a “debt champion” in its G20 presidency. Yet, the prospects for agreeing tangible holistic progress are very slim; not only in the current geo-political environment, but based on past progress made by other G20 presidency holders.
The pivot away ‘from grants towards expertise’ also raises questions. The example of UK tax expertise helping Ghana raise an additional £100 million sounds compelling. But it was a result of a decade of sustained, well-funded effort. In an era of a reduced civil service and dramatically reduced funding to support public financial management, partners may well wonder what the actual meat on the bones is of this.
Perhaps most concerningly, the UK government has drastically cut back its crisis reserve from past levels, with no specific mechanism or provision to increase FCDO’s budget in crisis situations. If you are not a priority country for humanitarian support now, the signal is very much the UK doesn’t have the means to support you should a crisis hit. In an era of global instability, climate change, and rising conflict, this is not a small omission, it’s a structural gap that needs addressing.
Giving with one hand, taking with the other
For all that was outlined in the UK’s revised approach to international development, there were glaring omissions. Critically, developing country governments are looking for global trade systems that are inclusive and provide pathways for development, and global tax systems that don’t facilitate illicit financial flows and reduce critical revenue to invest in children. To not mention these in the revised approach presents red flags. They featured in the last White Paper, their absence here will not go unnoticed. This impression is enhanced by the UK Government voting against developing countries at the UN on tax and debt, and given the fact that British Overseas Territories continue to be amongst the world’s largest tax havens. The overriding sense is a partnership will continue to feel like giving with one hand and taking with the other.
Fundamentally, actions speak louder than words
Four things feel front and centre to prevent mistrust and forge a positive step forward.
Listen and learn – true friendship means going to people, not waiting for them to come to you. Showing you care is critical and needs to come from the very top.
Develop and buy-in to a holistic whole-of-government approach to international development – being a trusted partner means that you look to tackle the hard things as well as the easy things, including fundamental reform on tax and trade, not just providing ODA. This needs the whole government to be joined up and pulling in the same direction.
Stand up and be counted – there is a critical need to showcase delivery, small or big. Never come to a party empty handed, whether you are hosting it (such as the Global Partnerships Conference) or leading on it (G20). Beyond ODA allocations, there are a suit of things the government can do to showcase to partners it is stepping up for them, as well as pushing others to as well.
Expect the unexpected – it is admirable to publicly set out ODA allocations for the next three years, but unwise not to build in more flexibility given the global backdrop. There are provisions the government can easily do or signal its intent to do, including formalising mechanism to draw on treasury reserves in crisis response.
The ball is in the UK’s court. Mazoka’s question deserves a real answer.
