A body representing civil society international development organisations has urged the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to improve its aid transparency after the department was criticised in a new report.
The 2022 Aid Transparency Index, created by Publish What You Fund, identified that for the first time since the index began no UK aid agencies had “very good” data transparency.
Compared to the Department for International Development (DFID), Boris Johnson’s merger of the department with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has fared considerably worse.
FCDO has fallen seven places to 16th place in its ranking since the index reviewed DFID in 2020. It has also lost 13.5 points. For the first time since the categories were introduced in 2013, the organisations are “good” instead of “very good.”
Bond, a network working with 400 UK civil society organisations working in international development, called for the FCDO's drop in standinds to be addressed.
The UK lost points because of the absence of organisational strategy due to a 2.5-year delay in the publication of the UK’s International Development Strategy and a lack of transparency. For example, disclosure of contracts and tenders were published for less than 35% of activities.
However, more aid organisations than ever before are publishing good quality information and score “very good” or “good” in the global ranking.
At the same time, the publisher of the index is set to close due to a lack of funding. The FCDO is one of two donors that support it financially.
Bond: The fall in the UK's standing must be addressed
Stephanie Draper, chief executive at Bond, said: “The loss of transparency of UK aid is a blow for the marginalised communities we work with and the British public, who need to be able to see how it's spent. To ensure value for money and to achieve the goal of alleviating poverty, UK aid must be transparent and accountable. This fall in UK standing must be addressed.
“This is an opportunity for the foreign secretary to show leadership by doubling down on the department’s transparency, which starts with publishing both departmental and cross-government UK aid budgets annually.”
‘It is hard to understand what the FCDO is doing’
Gary Forster, chief executive of Publish What You Fund, said: “Until recently the UK was considered a leader in aid transparency. However, recent events, including the removal of the transparency targets from the International Development Strategy, coupled with the high turnover of staff focussing on transparency, all suggest a de-prioritisation within the FCDO.
“The implication for UK taxpayers is less visibility of the FCDO’s activities and impact. Meanwhile in the countries where FCDO operates, the absence of strategies and detailed budgets make it increasingly difficult for other donors, as well as recipient governments, to understand what the FCDO is doing, coordinate, and ensure effective collaboration.
“It’s a bittersweet moment; more agencies than ever scoring good or very good, more examples of data being used to inform better development policy, and yet the Index, which has driven all of these improvements over the last decade is facing closure. There isn’t a backup option.”
Publish What You Fund implored organisations to invest in the index so it can continue to produce data about the landscape of foreign aid.
Sarah Champion MP: 'This is unnacceptable'
The chair of the International Development Committee, Sarah Champion MP, said: “My committee has expressed concerns before about the possible impact of the DFID/FCDO merger on aid transparency. Sadly, it appears that these concerns have now been realised.
“It is unacceptable that FCDO now ranks lower on this year’s Aid Transparency Index than the ranking previously held by DFID and that, since the last Index, it has also lost its “very good” rating.
“Transparency in aid spending is vital. Without high-quality data we cannot be sure that aid is reaching the world’s poorest people and delivering value for money. The FCDO must explore how to improve the quality of the data it publishes. The committee will continue to hold the department to account on this”.
Related articles
