The latest blow came just a few weeks ago, when the FCDO’s new commitment to UK aid transparency was submitted to the Open Government Partnership (OGP) – an international body involving 77 countries that promotes open government – and published as part of the UK’s updated National Action Plan 2021–2023. Aid transparency appears in the plan as Commitment 6.
Civil society organisations in the UK tried to engage with the FCDO on this commitment for more than nine months before any headway was made. Bond, Publish What You Fund and Development Initiatives sent initial proposals to the Cabinet Office, which leads this process, in summer 2021.
The FCDO didn’t engage with us until this summer, shortly before the deadline to update the action plan. While we were pleased that some engagement occurred, and that we secured the Foreign Office’s commitment to UK aid transparency (the UK’s last three action plans had none), the absence of political will yielded unambitious results.
This is manifested in three main ways.
Failures of the government’s new action plan
First, it lowers the bar for future commitments while also watering down previous ones. For example, in the 2015 development strategy, the UK government aimed for all its UK aid spending departments to be ranked ‘good’ or ‘very good’ in the Aid Transparency Index. We wanted to see a recommitment to this – especially as other government departments, including the Home Office, are seeing their UK aid spend increase exponentially.
However, departments have simply agreed to government-wide action to address the recommendations of the 2020 aid transparency review, which is already long overdue. It’s a huge step backwards to exclude the commitment to achieve ‘good’ or ‘very good’ in future reviews.
Second, the plan often just reiterates existing transparency and accountability requirements. For example, one action point is to “proactively engage with the recommendations of the ICAI [Independent Commission for Aid Impact] rapid review of Transparency in UK Aid”. However, the framework agreement between ICAI and the FCDO already requires the latter to respond to each ICAI review within six weeks of publication – something they have repeatedly failed to do over the last two years.
Third, the well-meaning language on engagement risks being co-opted or becoming a tick-box exercise, without tangible indicators. The action to adopt a “meaningful, inclusive and deliberative approach to engaging with civil society” is welcome, but there needs to be an engagement strategy that sets out how the FCDO will do this (and it needs to be published) – or it could be perceived as hot air. Similarly, the accompanying milestones of quarterly meetings risks becoming performative “engagement”.
Comments
We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.