Key emerging questions for the future of UK ODA

In recent weeks – following the publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and statements from officials – the details of the implications of the cuts in the UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) announced by the Prime Minister in February have become clearer.

However, there is still much to be decided about these cuts and the reshaping of the UK ODA programme over the coming months, and significant questions remain about how the approaches being taken will maximise its impact in promoting development.

What do we already know about the UK ODA cuts?

The CSR and recent statements by officials have confirmed the following about the how the UK ODA cuts will be introduced, and UK ODA will be reshaped in the coming years:

• The ODA programme budget of the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) will fall by a third from £9.3 billion in 2024/25 to £6.2 billion in 2027/28.
• Within the FCDO’s ODA programme, multilateral support will be prioritised, suggesting that bilateral and central programmes will face disproportionate cuts.
• Within the FCDO’s bilateral ODA programme, spending in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine will be protected, with humanitarian programmes being relatively protected. This implies that spending on bilateral ‘development’ programmes in non-protected countries is likely to be more than halved.
• The number of FCDO priority countries will be reduced, education and gender programmes are likely to face disproportionate cuts (a step we have deep concerns about), and the government have said it will be hard to maintain core support to British International Investment (BII).
• There will be a reshaping of bilateral programmes away from service delivery towards a focus on systems strengthening, with an added emphasis on promoting investment, leveraging other resources and making use of UK expertise.

What decisions are still to be made in FCDO?

FCDO officials have confirmed that over the period between now and September/October they will be working to plan budgets for their activities over the coming three years. Through this process the following will be decided:

• Priority countries for humanitarian and overall FCDO support.
• Overall allocations for each of the multilateral, central and bilateral programmes divisions.
• Detailed spending plans within each of these divisions, which will lead to the confirmation of three-year budgets for multilateral agencies, central programmes and priority countries.
• How the evolution of bilateral programmes to focus on systems strengthening, investment/leveraging resources and UK expertise will be taken forward.

FCDO officials have also confirmed that there will be more flexibility provided for officials in-country to direct the use of bilateral country budgets. In speaking about this decision to Peers, the Development Minister, Baroness Chapman, made clear that this approach will allow for the priorities of partner governments to be given stronger emphasis. She stated that “[Y]ou can’t go around saying you are not going to do paternalism and then completely disregard what a government thinks its analysis shows that it needs”.

Emerging questions about development impact of the UK ODA cuts and the reshaping of the UK ODA programme

The information shared by the government in recent weeks about plans for the UK ODA cuts and remaining ODA spending have helped to answer many key questions about the implications of these decisions. However, it has also raised a number of other questions about the way that the UK ODA programme is being reshaped, the answers to which will be critical to determining its focus on promoting poverty reduction and reaching the most marginalised people.

So, what do we identify as some of the key questions to be answered? We present four below:

1. Will priority countries be identified on the basis of humanitarian and development needs?

There has been little clarity on the basis on which a more focussed group of FCDO priority countries will be identified. Making these decisions on the basis of evidence on where humanitarian needs (e.g. using the UN’s humanitarian needs analysis or IRC’s Emergency Watchlist), development needs (e.g. using criteria related to country income and vulnerability) and challenges in reaching the most left behind (using indicators around marginalisation) are greatest will help to ensure UK ODA is directed to where it is needed most.

2. To what extent will country-level spending decisions be made on the basis of development objectives and strategic responses to development needs?

In principle it is welcome that there will be more flexibility for officials in-country to direct ODA towards priorities in partner countries, as this could help to better address local development needs. However, given the absence of a UK development strategy and the (often) competing emphasis in FCDO on promoting UK economic, security diplomatic goals, it is not clear to what extent development objectives will drive decisions about the use of ODA in-country, how FCDO will promote the strategic coherence of its ODA spending in supporting country-level development outcomes and how an approach to reaching the most left behind will be pursued.

Requiring each priority country to set out, publish and report against a set of strategic development objectives it is pursuing with ODA and giving FCDO Development Directors (rather than Ambassadors/High Commissioners) powers to direct and oversee this resource will help to promote a development focus of UK bilateral ODA. Bond’s will soon be publishing a Call to Action on Leave No One Behind’ which sets out how the government should address this important principle of the SDGs across its development work.

3. How will an emphasis on promoting UK expertise work with efforts to promote locally-led development?

There will be development challenges on which partner countries will find it valuable to draw on UK expertise. However, there are questions about how the emphasis on UK expertise will be promoted, how this approach will help to promote locally-led development and the most appropriate solutions to development challenges. Ensuring that partner countries have full control over the areas in which they utilise UK expertise and that they can choose what expertise they want to draw on through UK ODA programmes will help to strengthen their impact and value for money.

4. How the growing emphasis on better responding to the priorities of partner governments shape FCDO’s engagement with and support to civil society partners?

It is vital that UK ODA better responds to national development priorities and provides more effective support to strengthen national institutions. However, this approach raises a question about how FCDO’s support to civil society will evolve, which is a critical question given the growing levels of authoritarianism across the world, the critical role civil society plays in driving development and the need to empower all local actors. Ensuring that FCDO offices identify strategic priorities and set aside resources for supporting civil society and allocating funding centrally for this support will help to address this imperative.