UK parliamentary committee backs aid to conflict-affected states, but says funding should be withheld if recipient states fail to deliver on transparency or human rights
The UK must be prepared to suspend or even cancel aid programmes to conflict-affected states if they flout agreements or refuse to engage in efforts to increase transparency and accountability, a group of MPs said in a report on Thursday.
Members of the international development committee said the British government is right to boost aid to "fragile states", such as Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), but should use its influence to press for improvement in governance.
Putting a greater emphasis on fragile states, the Department for International Development (DfID) will spend 30% of official development assistance (ODA) – about £3.4bn – in these states by 2015.
At a recent conference on aid effectiveness, held in Busan, South Korea, the UK was a principal advocate for a "new deal" for fragile states that will focus aid on building up security and justice systems in conflict-ravaged countries such as the DRC and South Sudan.
While the committee was generally sympathetic to government efforts, it warned of the risks in delivering aid in difficult environments where fraud and corruption are rife.
"There are obvious benefits of providing aid to fragile states. It is, after all, cheaper to prevent conflicts, than to deal with wars and their aftermath," said Malcolm Bruce, chairman of the committee. "Nevertheless, there are considerable risks in spending aid money in conflict-scarred states, and the government must be frank and open about this if it wants to convince the public that its approach is the right one, both morally and politically."
On specific cases, the committee notes that Rwanda has made remarkable progress in forging unity and in reaching the millennium development goals, 17 years after the genocide. But it also notes the concerns expressed by groups such as Human Rights Watch that restrictions are being placed on political expression and freedom of the press. The UK will provide £90m to Kigali in 2014-15, making it Rwanda's biggest donor. Britain also has a 10-year memorandum of understanding with the government that includes consideration of human rights and responsible government.
The committee recommended that Britain set out indicators or benchmarks in its budget support agreements about what type of improvements it expects to see in areas such as freedom of speech and of association over the remaining period covered by the memorandum. "This might include ensuring human rights organisations can operate freely and improving freedom of the press," it said.
The UK also provides budget support for Ethiopia, where DfID plans to spend an average of £331m annually until 2015, making it one of the biggest recipients of British aid. Ethiopia, where a court recently convicted two Swedish journalists in a much-criticised trial, also has a poor reputation for human rights.
"DfID should set out specific governance conditions under which it will provide support, and any under which it will be withdrawn," said the report. "It should also, as a matter of course, set out clearly how its aid budget for each country is distributed between multilateral and bilateral spending and the reasons for this distribution."
In the DRC, where DfID is investing £790m between 2010 and 2015, the committee said government measures to regulate the notoriously corrupt mining industry, where proceeds have been used to fund conflict and criminality, remain insufficient. The committee called on DfID to set out clearly for the DRC what the UK expects in terms of transparency and accountability in the mineral sector and to withdraw assistance if these expectations are not met. It also recommended standalone projects for reducing and responding to violence against women and girls, a particularly serious problem in eastern DRC, and investing at least 10% of its budget on grassroots community building programmes.
Bruce said the committee was not suggesting that DfID cancel any programmes at this stage. "But what we are saying is that Britain cannot sign up unconditionally to provide aid," he said. "While we support this commitment to fragile and post-conflict states, it should not be an open-ended guarantee."
Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, said: "This report says the coalition government is right to focus aid on fragile and conflict-affected states, to tackle crises before they begin. We make absolutely clear to countries that transparency and good governance are vital, and we are prepared to withhold funding through governments when our standards are not met, as we have done in Malawi."