On the 16th of June, the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced the merger of the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The merger was described by the government as “being an opportunity for the UK to have even greater impact and influence on the world stage”. This has raised many questions in the world of international development. Take a look below at what some of our expert think.
What are the main consequences of this action?
“While there is a lot of uncertainty around the creation of the new FCDO, it can be assumed that the share of funding linked to international trade and security will increase and funding directed at poverty alleviation will decrease over time. The UK’s reputation for technical leadership and innovation in development approaches and funding can be expected to be weakened. In the short-term, this is already happening linked to the uncertainty regarding the changes, not only externally but within DFID and the associated delays in funding decisions as well as anticipated cuts to proposed interventions. Broad focus areas have been indicated and there will be winners and losers. While procurement modalities are still to be confirmed, a continued focus on commercial contracting is expected. The closure of the International Development Committee – the UK parliament’s watchdog – and uncertainty about the future of the Independent Committee on Aid Impact (ICAI), suggests a reduced scrutiny and effectiveness of international aid.”
“The potential consequence of the merger is the politicization of UK development assistance and a shift to a more transactional emphasis on development delivered in direct support of the UK national interest. But it doesn’t have to mean this. What is proposed is not the takeover of one department by the other, but a merger of the two into a new unit able to integrate the main levers of UK soft power into a coherent whole. This could reflect our growing understanding of the complexity and integrated nature of security and development and the transnational nature of the threats and opportunities they offer. But such a positive outcome will require political will which can identify, value and plan to support long term change and is not defined purely by domestic, short term self-interest.”
“The main consequence of merging DFID with the FCO is that it is likely that there will be less aid available from the British taxpayer to the world’s most vulnerable. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has hinted that more aid will go to middle-income countries such as Ukraine (due to its strategic importance to European security) rather than countries that fall under the UN’s ‘least developed’ categorization such as Zambia or Tanzania. The focus on important issues such as global health security and climate change adaptation, which are core areas for DFID, are likely to be reduced and there is likely to be huge disruption caused by this merger with many planned international development projects being possibly subject to procurement delays. The UK’s reputation and standing in the world is also likely to be damaged and the merger could lead to a reduction in accountability. DFID is currently heavily scrutinized by the International Development Committee, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the National Audit Office and by the OECD Peer Review process. Whether the same level of scrutiny will be applied to the FCO after the merger remains to be seen.”
“Without a strategy that supports the basis of the merger, there is a lot of uncertainty as to what the future of UK aid involves. How would diplomacy and development work side-by-side and where has this worked well? What structure will the newly merged department adopt? How will this impact DFID and FCO employees in both UK and country offices? The response to the merger announcement has already garnered condemnation from across the international community and there is a growing fear that external scrutiny of the aid budget will be sidelined.”
What does this mean for international development?
“This is not good news for international development, particularly the goal to ‘leave no one behind’. Human-rights focused CSOs working at the frontline may face particular challenges accessing new funding sources. Overall, there is an anticipated negative impact on some of the development gains that have been achieved. However, new funding sources and modalities may emerge from the vacuum created by the weakening of the UK government’s contribution. These changes may also act as a further incentive to decentralization in large UK INGOs as regional and country programs seek to access a broader funding base.
“This is an opportunity for international development to explain (to taxpayers and others) how it benefits both the giver and the receiver and to enrich a narrative about the UK’s position in the world which risks becoming myopic, extractive, and transactional. It is an opportunity for it to show how mutual benefit can be delivered in a sustainable manner. But where in the past the goal has been to make international development politically savvy through Thinking and Working Politically, the new requirement will be to help others understand and work with development more thoughtfully and strategically. The next task then, for diplomatic and security practitioners, is to begin work on Thinking and Working Developmentally.”
“International development will be impacted by the loss of one of the most respected development and humanitarian agencies in the world. Moreover, it is likely that there will be less aid available for low income, least developed, and fragile states. DFID currently provides 61% of aid for Least Developed Countries, in comparison to the 22% from the FCO, and DFID gives 88% of aid for extremely fragile and fragile states, in comparison to 41% from the FCO. Hopefully, there will not be a knock-on effect from this merger with other countries deciding to follow the UK’s (and previously Australia’s) lead in merging international development and foreign affairs departments.”
“Until the Integrated Review is complete (which is now underway) and the long-term strategic aims of the UK’s international policy are presented, it is difficult to say what impact the merger could have on the future of international development. Will the FCDO continue to focus its development efforts towards the eradication of global poverty? The resource imbalance between the two departments is evident – so will there be a reshuffle of resources and how will this impact pipeline development programs? Will the diplomatic arm of the FCDO seek to complement or control its development arm? To be pessimistic or optimistic? That is the question!”
Check out more than 100 of job opportunities linked to DFID here.
