By Joe Card
Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn statement last month demonstrated that Rishi Sunak’s new administration is no more committed to the UK’s international aid responsibilities than his two predecessors were. The statement confirmed that the UK’s international aid spending won’t be returning to its target level any time soon – given the current dire economic circumstances this was to be expected. However, what was less excusable was the government’s decision to continue including spending on Ukrainian refugees as ODA. Supporting refugees is essential, but the resulting cut in UK spending on aid overseas is regrettable. Furthermore, the government is deliberately misrepresenting the numbers to conceal these cuts to overseas aid. This approach will only worsen the precarious position of Britain’s soft power around the world.
Official Development Assistance (ODA) is the technical term for international aid spent by donor countries on improving welfare and economic development in developing countries, according to the OECD. This definition clearly intends that the aid should be spent abroad in developing countries - not in the donor nation. In 2005 the UK government committed to spending 0.7% of UK GDP on ODA, but during the COVID pandemic this was reduced to 0.5%. However, the UK government is including the support given to refugees in their first twelve months in the UK, as part of this target. A report from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact states that in 2021 support for refugees in the UK represented almost 10% of the UK’s aid budget, and this is expected to increase in 2022 to almost 40% due to the cost of various schemes for Ukrainian refugees. Out of the £11 billion aid budget, the government will spend more than £4 billion in the UK, primarily on refugees, with the rest going to international organisations and bilateral programs in specific countries. The Home Office calculates what proportion of refugee costs can be declared as ODA according to an ‘accounting mechanism’ that covers the costs of supporting Syrian, Ukrainian, and Afghan refugees, as well as general asylum seekers and victims of modern slavery.
Under the 1951 Convention on Refugees, the UK has a responsibility to take in any refugee in need, and it is of course right that these refugees should be supported to settle in the UK. Refugees often have complex needs, whether from handling traumatic experiences in their home countries, adjusting to potential language barriers , and the possibility that they were brought to the UK by an exploitative human trafficking network. Meeting these needs can come at a significant cost to a variety of government organisations from schools supporting refugee children and hospitals dealing with language barriers, to local authorities providing suitable accommodation and police investigating traffickers. But these costs are met within the UK so they should be seen as part of the UK’s domestic spending obligations. By choosing to use an obscure ‘accounting mechanism’ to claim this spending as ODA, the government is effectively concealing deep cuts to the international aid budget.
Technically, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) allows spending on refugees to be counted as ODA subject to strict conditions, as it is for humanitarian purposes. But just because Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt can cover their backs with the electorate using this loophole, does not mean that they should. The UK, as one of the richest countries in the world with a GDP of roughly £2 trillion, is surely capable of supporting refugees in this country without finding the funding in the international aid budget. The OECD definition is inconsistent. On the one hand it requires that ODA should help developing countries, and on the other hand the OECD explicitly allows spending within donor countries on refugees to be considered as aid, but provides no explanation as to how spending in donor countries aids developing countries. Moreover, there is nothing forcing the government to count spending on refugees as development aid.
It is essential that the government leaves the international aid budget intact because of the severe consequences of further cuts, which means that the government should consider funding refugee support without resorting to the aid budget. In the last year alone, cuts to the UK’s international aid budget have had serious consequences for people in dire need of humanitarian assistance around the world. For example, in September the government failed to pay over $300 million to two international funds that aim to support the transition to net zero in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and help vulnerable communities protect themselves from the impacts of climate change. This lack of aid will hamper the urgent transition to a sustainable global economy and risks the planet heating by more than 2 degrees, which will lead to massive and potentially irreparable damage to agriculture, marine wildlife and overall biodiversity, and coral reefs. The government is also likely to make further cuts to the humanitarian assistance provided in Yemen. Civilians have been severely affected by the ongoing war there, with health care, sanitation, and food supplies all disrupted, yet in 2021 the UK cut aid from £221000 to £82000, a decrease of more than 60%. Further cuts in Yemen will have serious repercussions for civilians in one of the worst humanitarian crises on the planet.
It is clear that the UK international aid budget will not be going back to 0.7% any time soon, but this does not have to mean that the UK gives up on its commitment to international aid. By including support for refugees in its calculations of ODA, the government is effectively cutting the aid budget by £4 billion this year, with no long-term plan as to how it will meet the shortfall. Making use of every available loophole in the OECD definition of ODA will only damage those least well off in the world. If the new government were to take a more open approach to aid, by only counting money spent abroad or sent to international organisations, this would demonstrate their commitment to transparency rather than fiddling the numbers in an attempt to get away with paying less.
Comentarios