Since 2015, the United Kingdom has been used as an example in several reports to highlight the importance of consolidating the commitment to the aid sector by means of a legal framework. Back in 2013, the UK had decided to make a commitment to allocate 0.7% to cooperation, but it was not until 2015 that this commitment was grounded in a law that protected it from any potential changes that political fluctuations might bring about in the future.
This was no easy task, because just as it is difficult to manage scarce economic resources in the sector of international cooperation, a significant increase in resources must be combined with good financial and technical management to ensure the effectiveness and impact of actions. In 2020, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the public body in charge of monitoring international aid spending, produced a report stating that UK aid had consistently increased its effectiveness, mainly through better collaboration between the different departments working on aid and the civil service, and better adaptation of processes to aid objectives.
However, days after the publication of this report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, announced that the 0.7% would not be spent on aid in 2021 due to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. In his words, this move was justified because "in a domestic fiscal emergency, when we need to prioritise our limited resources around jobs and public services, it is difficult to justify to the British public that we are sticking rigidly to spending 0.7% of our national income on overseas aid". And although he promised to get back on track towards 0.7%, this would be done under certain vague conditions, such as "when the fiscal situation permits", thus leaving the decision open to subjective interpretation.
Reactions were swift. In response to this decision, Elizabeth Sugg, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Commonwealth and Development, resigned shortly afterwards. Civil society also spoke out against the move, arguing that fighting a global pandemic by reducing resources for cooperation made no sense. Romilly Greenhill, UK campaign director of ONE, which strongly supported the 0.7% law, compared the timing of the measure in the midst of the pandemic to "taking funding away from the RAF [Royal Air Force] at the height of the Battle of Britain".
All these mobilisations failed to change the UK government's decision, the direct consequence of which was that UK ODA fell from 0.7% in 2020 to 0.5% in 2021, a reduction of £5 billion. Many ongoing projects were affected by these cuts.
Beyond the non-fulfilment of promises and commitments, or even political incoherence, there is a particularly disturbing element to this situation that is worth highlighting. Over the years, the United Kingdom has been held up as the example to follow for having succeeded in legally anchoring the 0.7% commitment. However, the reality is that even the protection of the law does not prevent the rules of the game from being changed when the government of the day deems it appropriate. There has been no legal sanction, because under the law passed in 2015 it was only necessary for the Secretary of State concerned to report on why the 0.7% had not been complied with, as this is the only accountability mechanism that was approved in the law. It is true that no additional legislation has been proposed to manage these budgets downwards, which seems to indicate that this situation may be temporary. In the debate on the 2022 aid budgets, the Chancellor stated that the budget will be reviewed, in accordance with the 2015 Act, in order to ascertain whether it would be possible to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA. To do so, certain requirements would have to be met vis-à-vis the latest fiscal forecast. It would have to be confirmed, on a sustainable basis, that there is a budget surplus and that no borrowing is taking place to pay for day-to-day expenditures, and that net public sector debt is falling. In other words, the 0.7% would be complied with when economic conditions are positive, which means cooperation is considered a second-tier policy and subject to the government's decision on other policies. For example, if the government decides to double its spending on arms, this could have an impact on the ODA budget.
Accepting that laws cannot be immutable, and that there are exceptional times when complex decisions have to be made, the fact is that this law did not have sufficient safeguards to protect it from the government's actions.