Is this a DFID merger or an FCO takeover? These are the signs to look for.

LONDON — By September, the U.K.’s highly renowned Department for International Development will be gone — scheduled instead to become part of the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The timing of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s announcement came as a surprise, but little else about it did — Johnson has long been critical of the department and in favor of a merger. The departmental reorganization will be extremely challenging and, because of DFID’s size, without precedent, according to Rachael Calleja, senior research associate at the Center for Global Development. “There are a lot of unknowns in this case,” she said. Hostility to DFID’s work from some elements of the governing Conservative Party — and rhetoric used by Johnson during the announcement — has led some critics to brand the move not a merger, but a “hostile takeover” of the department. The government insists FCDO will be a wholly new department, in which development will be a key focus but better aligned with U.K. foreign policy goals. “If it [the merger] is to create a more effective mechanism for delivering aid, and support clear values already espoused by DFID, that would make it a success,” Alistair Burt, a former Conservative development minister, told Devex. “If it is designed to appease a sceptical Tory focus group, then it will not be.” But how will it be possible to tell the difference? Devex asked experts on development and government about the clues they will be looking for. If the merger is to be a “civil union of equals,” safeguards will be necessary to ensure the department’s diplomatic arm does not overwhelm its development mission, according to Nilima Gulrajani, senior research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute, a London-based think tank. “There is value in thinking about to what extent the development arm retains a separate identity,” she added. This could be done, as in Ireland, by setting up a separate directorate with its own management board and could include DFID’s current board. This was echoed by Laura Round, a former government special adviser on development, who said the merger would only be successful “if the best of DFID is preserved and nurtured.” She told Devex: “That comes down to expertise and at a bureaucratic level as to how senior civil servants and also more junior civil servants are going to be integrated. I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of what DFID looks like now remains in place.” A true merger would see DFID’s directors general, who hold significant decision-making power, brought into the new department, Round added. But whether DFID or Foreign & Commonwealth Office staffers are appointed to director general positions for country programs will also be telling, Gulrajani said. FCDO’s permanent secretary — the most senior civil servant in the department — will be a key appointment. Simon McDonald, the current permanent secretary of FCO, is expected to step down in the fall. The role could be filled by a senior DFID official who will advocate for development or by an official from another department. The person will “absolutely have to be top drawer and capable of standing up to Downing Street,” Burt said. But he warned that “the government might be tempted to go for an outsider from the civil service, for greater control.” “Beyond senior appointments, there’s also [the question of] the autonomy of civil servants and their ability to respond to fast-changing circumstances on the ground without needing to go back to ambassadors or London,” Gulrajani added. “Will that flexibility that DFID has been known for be eroded?” Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has confirmed he will lead FCDO at the government level, but the appointment of a senior deputy who understands DFID would show government commitment to development, according to Round. The current DFID secretary of state, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, would make a “lot of sense,” Round said, adding that this position could bring a development perspective to National Security Council meetings and allow for more senior U.K. representation at international events. “It will be indicative if the role of the former DFID [secretary of state] is given Cabinet status, similar to the Chief Secretary at HMT [the Treasury]” Burt added. “Human development needs, health, education, WASH etc., should be to the fore for a strong DFID voice; trade, business and security for the FCO,” he wrote in an email. “I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of what DFID looks like now remains in place.” --— Laura Round, former government special adviser on development Alongside personnel changes, examining government statements on the launch of the department, and analyzing its proposed budgets and spending, will be critical, Burt added. Gulrajani said paying attention to funding for so-called global public goods and sectoral priorities such as conflict and inequality would be key, along with multilateral contributions. But the most important funding to watch will be that which “advances a more narrow national interest” and takes the focus away from development, she said. “Are we going to see more aid going to countries that support our U.N. [United Nations] voting record?” she asked. “More informally tied aid to procurement by U.K. consultants? Will our aid and export strategies be closely linked?” The strategy of the DFID-owned CDC Group, which currently has a mandate to make investments that support the economies of lower-income countries, should also be scrutinized, Gulrajani said. Whether there will be more explicit support of U.K. commercial investments or a shift in investments away from some of the poorest countries in Africa are “open questions,” she added. How the new department — and official development assistance more broadly — is scrutinized will also be an area to watch. Strong scrutiny of ODA spending has been credited with improving the U.K.’s development performance. The International Development Committee, which scrutinizes DFID and ODA on behalf of Parliament, has already been warned it faces closure by the government and is campaigning for its survival. Meanwhile, there has been no official public comment about the future of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which scrutinizes FCO. “A strong Parliamentary Committee will be needed” to monitor FCDO, Burt said. Showing “continued commitment to development” will matter to the government, according to Round, who said politicians will want to “politically demonstrate to the sector they do care about it.” It will be some time before the full effects can be seen — but some indications will come sooner than others.