Download a response to the speech on development beyond aid by the

The Development and Environment Group (DEG) responsei to the speech:
“DEVELOPMENT BEYOND AID” BY HILARY BENN, THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
23 FEBRUARY 2006, CHATHAM HOUSE, LONDON UKii
The speechiii by the Secretary of State (SoS), Hilary Benn, poses many interesting and relevant
questions and highlights global challenges and problems in the current development
paradigm. This discussion paper aims to summarise some of the key points made and at the
same time poses questions and observations to stimulate thought and discussion.
The speech appears to offer a number of new directions for Aid and Development. It
recognises the importance of tackling poverty and environment linkages, the dangers posed
by climate change for poverty eradication and need for good governance. However a
concerted review of this and previous speeches presented for the White Paper (WP)
consultation process, demonstrates contradictions and schisms between the rhetoric of the
various speeches. Also some contradictions are apparent between the rhetoric and the current
reality of the British Government’s approaches to reducing poverty.
Whilst the speech is enlightened in content, we still need to see concrete commitments to
tackle climate change, reduce poverty and create a sustainable future.
The speech started with a metaphor of the world ‘entering a stretch of rapids on the rivers ahead
and what are needed are maps of safe routes, willingness to paddle together and lifejackets’.
Underlying all the changes we can see ahead is the increasingly ‘interconnected nature of the
global world’ and five key features of this interdependence:





More interdependence can mean more safety/security (e.g. Europe)
Greater interdependence can also mean more risks
Global interdependence requires global management of its consequences
Successful management of global interdependence will partly be about individual behaviour
and values
Interdependence means complexity and uncertainty as well as opportunity’.
The speech offered substantial context on the challenges facing development. It stated ‘the
symptoms of today’s problems will become the catalysts and causes of tomorrow’s crises‘. It
highlighted ‘we are fast depleting natural resources including soil, oil, forestry, fisheries and water
and in the process creating potential flashpoints of conflict in the future’. The SoS also
acknowledged that responses to the global challenges ahead are constrained by the ‘endemic
short-termism in our politics and economics that under values the future relative to the present.’
The speech provides the context for a discussion of ‘Development beyond Aid’, acknowledging
DFIDs progress last year on aid and debt, but also recognising that, given the scale of global
challenges, ‘aid in itself is not enough’. In essence, the policies we pursue matter just as much, if not
more for development, than the money we give’.
1
Hilary Benn offered two issues as examples; ‘(i) Climate change and (ii) the Global causes of bad
governance’.
(i) Climate change
On climate change the SoS made a number of groundbreaking admissions for a UK Minister.
He stated that ‘DFIDs interest is that climate change is a problem caused by the rich countries which
is having the greatest impact on poor countries. We cannot ignore the impact of our actions on the
climate, nor can we deny developing countries the chance to grow and reduce poverty. He further
states that ‘climate change is increasing the severity of natural disasters and will have devastating
effects, sea levels will rise by a metre and food production could be reduced by a fifth. Competition over
natural resources already causes conflict and climate change will worsen this. The truth is if we don’t
do something about climate change, aid from rich countries will look pitiful by comparison with the
consequences and costs for developing countries and yet climate change is not the fault of developing
countries’.
He went on to recommend that we need to do ‘four key things’ with regard to climate change:
1. Keep publicising the science
2. Work for a global solution-recognising that we need to set shared goals for action by the G8 and
five of the biggest emerging economies and agree safe limits of carbon dioxide concentration
3. Reduce the volume of carbon emissions through the greater use of cleaner technology.
4. Help developing countries cope with and adapt to the impact of climate change that’s already
happening’.
These statements are explicit recognition of the scale and extent by which climate change
threatens planetary well-being and livelihoods of billions of people. These statements need
consolidation and incorporation into the WP as a foundation for British Government’s action
on climate change.
Issues for consideration:
a) There is no reference given to achieving policy coherence across government and reducing
UK carbon emissions to mitigate climate change impacts upon the worlds poor.
From a Policy Coherence perspective it is logical for the UK government, which aspires to care
about both climate change and poverty reduction, to pay special attention to the needs of the
LDCs to adapt to impacts of climate change. However, it is interesting to note that the only
international fund created so far, namely the LDC Fund, to help those poor countries
identify and adopt measures to adapt to climate change has not received any contribution
(or pledge) from the UK Government up until now.iv
b) Even more critically, the speech failed to mention how the UK government will work
coherently across all departments to ensure reductions in global greenhouse emissions and to
live up to its own environmental responsibilities. There are no clear guarantees on meeting
environmental targets or supporting and encouraging others to do the same. More effective
global environmental governance and increased accountability by powerful high income
countries and multinational corporations is crucial to address climate change and
environmental degradation.
2
c) Of further critical concern is the lack of coherence within Hilary Benn’s own series of
speeches. His first speech focused on ‘economic growth as the means to achieve poverty reduction’,
regarding the environment as one of seven essential ingredients and a necessary resource for
growth, but conversely not as a required foundation for poverty eradication and sustainable
development. His most recent speech falls short of fully explaining how DFID will reconcile
its focus and the mantra of ‘going for growth’ with mitigating the effects of climate change. It
is easy to suggest that growth, development and a sustainable environment are achievable.
However, achievement requires many factors, especially resolute political will, the right
polices and regulation, as well as a commitment to implementation. There is no indication
of provision of new resources to meet the challenge at a time of declining DFID technical
support for the environment.
(ii) The global causes of bad governance
The SoS highlighted these can ‘create insecurity and conflict and lead to large scale theft and the
squandering of the wealth and resources of poor countries’.
The role of developed nations is again acknowledged when the SoS states that ‘one of the
reasons (for corruption around natural resources) is rich countries and consumers, who are willing to
pay a great deal of money for valuable commodities’.
The SoS highlighted a number of areas where DFID has taken action on causes of bad
governance including the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), Forest Law
Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) and the Kimberley Process. He stressed that
‘UK government departments are working closely together to fight international corruption. They
passed the proceeds of crime act in 2002 to fight money laundering’.
Issues for consideration:
a) Developing accountable states is about more than anti corruption initiatives and financial
management (though these are critically important), it is about creating an environment
where citizens and other institutions are empowered (through information, skills, capacity
etc) to able to ask questions, raise the level of debate and start the process of creating checks
and balances. There’s a need to commit to pro-poor growth through better governance and
institutional changes that improve poor people’s access and rights to natural resources and
empower people in decision making that affects them.
b) At present DFID readily condemns bad governance in the Congo, Nigeria and other
African states but is less (publicly) critical of decisions and activities of other parts of UK
Government and UK private sector companies. The speech states that ‘these challenges can’t be
tackled by any one department and any one state they are, by their nature, global. And notes that
‘other countries have different systems to ensure policy coherence beyond aid’ Are there other
systems that work well? Where and what can we learn from them? Should more pressure
be put on the UK Government to adopt Swedish-style 'development coherence' legislation?
Another logical question is what is it that DFID should then be doing within the UK
government and the international system to ensure policy coherence and transparency about
how policy decisions are reached across departments with particular regard to issues of UK
private sector interest? A bigger question is perhaps how government ensures these activities
3
do not undermine its ability to champion the needs of the poor, support good global
governance and tackle the cause and consequences of climate change. A focus on policy
coherence across Whitehall with supported commitment to new resources towards
researching and implementing UK government’s activities that minimise climate change
and epitomise ‘good governance’ would be a good starting point.
c) An example of a current government contradiction is that ‘one short haul flight to Europe emits
over a fifth of our annual carbon allowance’ and yet the current Labour government is not doing
anywhere near as much as it could ensure the true cost of air-transport is reflected in ticket
prices. This comes at the same time as Shell the Anglo-Dutch energy giant generated profits of
$22.94bn (£13.12bn) - up nearly a third on last year when it set a UK record with profits of
$17.59bn.v
d) Equity - the notion of 'interdependence' and the 'paddling together' image don't really work if
we do not address the problems caused by the vast and growing gaps in wealth and power at
global and national levels. These are at the root of climate change and bad governance, as the
speech infers. Can the White Paper unpack these issues or are they too contentious? If we
are to address 'Development beyond Aid' it seems essential.
(iii) Other issues related to ‘Policies beyond Aid’, interdependence and coherence.
Other than climate change and good global governance what are the other critical issues for
Development beyond Aid? There are many issues including, several highlighted by the
Consultation document: Impact of UK policies on developing countries, ccorruption, the arms
trade, migration and the brain drain, international trade, as well as urbanisation, access to
information and new technologies etc. What are the most crucial threats and areas of
incoherence within DFID and HMG policy affecting development? What needs to change at
the local, national regional or international level to address them?
One major failing from the 2005 World Summit was to address a vast range of critical
challenges (the impacts of AIDS, inability to adapt to climate change, inadequate governance
structures and so on), but not to begin to address the ways in which, especially at local and
national levels, these present cumulative problems that need to be addressed coherently.
Development agencies have been part of the problem in this compartmentalisation; the Paris
harmonization agenda addresses coherence between donors but more is needed to work with
local institutions that are best able to respond to complex, overlapping problems.
The SoS drew the speech to a close by focusing on six questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What should a whole of UK government approach look like in 2010 or 2015?
What would a global plan for each of these issues look like in 2010 or 2015?
How much influence can the UK have?
What will happen if no action is taken?
Which countries and regions are most at risk?
How can we in the UK and especially those countries and regions in the developing world best
cope with and adapt to these changes?’
4
Some further thoughts:
Sustainable development - a framework to address growing Global Challenges
Scientific research and civil society are increasingly demonstrating the integral relationships
between poverty, the environment and economic growth. Growing awareness of the impacts
of unregulated economic growth is strengthening a new vision for Environment and
Development. Through the White Paper consultation process DFID has a unique opportunity
to nurture this vision and to reaffirm its position as a leading development agency for an
interdependent 21st century and future.
Time is short and political will lacking, but what is needed is a new way of doing business.
The framework for this process exists in the UK government’s sustainable development
strategy. We must take shared responsibility for the global environmental system that we all
rely on. We must learn from, value and work with natural systems and processes - climate
change is a perfect example of our own interdependence with global systems and the need for
holistic and integrated responses to meet global challenges. If we ignore such challenges we
do so at our own risk. However, it remains to be seen as to whether DFID truly has the
political will to lead the way to a new vision for ‘Development beyond Aid’ in an
interdependent global world.
Concerns over the consultation process
Transparency, accountability and access to information and decision-making are key
components of Good Governance. However, within the WP consultation process DFID does
not allow stakeholders to comment on concrete proposals or drafts of the proposed WP. The
time given to respond just 11 weeks, one week short of UK Government Code of Practice. The
manner of the consultation process does not able sufficient time or processes for good
engagement and suggests that the WP development is being rushed through. Moreover, the
final content of the last speech of the 14th of March is only available 3 days before the cut off
time for a submission that would guarantee a response from DFID. Additionally, and of
greatest concern, is the lack of a clear transparent process for listening and responding to
recipients of DFID aid, especially the poor in developing countries. Instead concerned parties
must quickly second guess the ideologies and rhetoric embedded in the speeches narrative in
order to make comments that hope to affect the white papers focus and ultimately the lives of
billions of poor people. If we are talking about development beyond aid, policy coherence
and a focus on good governance then we need to think critically about how DFID does its
own business, how it engages with its own partners and how it can be held more
accountable.
Environment matters! Gaining political capital
A recent groundbreaking survey by the Guardian newspapervi stated that some 63% of
respondents approved of a green tax to discourage behaviour that harms the environment.
More startlingly was that some 33% saw Mr David Cameroon the Conservative Party leader
as the most likely to protect the environment. We hope that Hilary Benn has sufficient
foresight to recognise not only the urgency of the need for concerted action to reduce poverty
and secure a safe environment, but also the nature of the environment as a political arena
worthy of DFID investment.
5
This paper discusses the recent speech by Hilary Benn on ‘Development beyond Aid’ at presented at Chatham
House. The speech is the fifth in a series of six, presented as part of the White Paper (WP) consultation process.
The six speeches content forms the only indication of HMG and DFIDs direction on Aid and Development for the
new white paper due in the summer of 2006. The paper provokes critical comment and debate about the speeches
content and the direction for DFIDs proposed new Development White Paper. This paper supports stakeholder
feedback at a Coherence workshop hosted by the Development Environment Group of BOND which through
discussion and debate offers the opportunity to influence DFIDs Development White Paper
ii
Prepared by Kit Vaughan and DEG members for BOND 26/02/2006
iii
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/Speeches/wp2006-speeches/beyond-aid230206.asp
iv
Dr Saleemul Huq IIED 20/2/2006
v
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4672716.stm
vi
www.gurdian.co.uk/politics/green
i
6