Watching the watchdog: What has ICAI done for UK aid?

LONDON — At central London’s Queen Elizabeth II Centre, a diverse group of development experts crowded in a backroom to discuss an ongoing debate in their field: the U.K. government’s policy of spending aid for “mutual prosperity” — which, despite its prominence, lacks any official definition. The event was hosted by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact which last year released a study scrutinizing the concept. Among other things, the study said it risked reinforcing negative power relations and undermining public confidence in aid. As the U.K.’s official aid watchdog, ICAI’s duty “is to provide independent evaluation and scrutiny of the impact and value for money of all UK Government ODA” — or official development assistance — according to a statement on its website. Its guiding principles include accountability, feedback and learning, analytical rigor, and accessibility. At 9 years old, ICAI was once dismissed by some in the development sector as little more than an accountant, but it has grown and evolved since then to become a thorn in the side for some officials. Among the experts Devex spoke to, there was unanimous agreement that ICAI has performed a vital role in holding the government to account and helping to improve its performance. Now, France plans to create an aid watchdog in ICAI’s mold — the Commission Indépendante d'Evaluation — as part of a bill to overhaul the country’s development policy. “To make sure we have an effective way of operating, the creation of an independent commission of evaluation is mandatory,” Hervé Berville, the politician behind the bill, told Devex. “Ministers worry they will be criticized. … It is quite unusual to give up that scrutiny and power to a third and independent party.” --— Andrew Mitchell, former secretary of state for international development, DFID Berville, previously a development economist, said he first noticed ICAI’s positive influence on U.K. development while working with colleagues from the U.K.’s Department for International Development in Mozambique several years ago. He said he believed DFID’s “strong way of thinking” on effectiveness and value for money was at least partly influenced by ICAI and later met with commission officials to learn more about the watchdog and its role. But what has ICAI achieved as it nears the end of its first decade, and how much can other donors learn from it in the drive to improve aid spending? A ‘fundamental role’ The commission — which receives public funding amounting to several million pounds per year but is independent from the government — reports to the U.K. Parliament through a subgroup of the International Development Committee, the cross-party group of politicians who monitor DFID spending. Each year, ICAI produces several public reports on various aspects of the government’s ODA spending and practices. To do this, it has access to classified documents and conducts field trips to collect evidence. It can spend 10 months or more working on especially complex investigations. Tamsyn Barton, who became ICAI’s chief commissioner in January 2019, told Devex that its lines of inquiry emerged through a varied consultation process and that ideas about what to investigate are assessed against criteria such as relevance and practicality. The commission plays “an absolutely fundamental role in the aid sector … in terms of accountability and transparency … and to ensure good development work,” according to Simon Starling, director of policy, advocacy, and research at Bond, an umbrella group for U.K. development NGOs. “We have seen that government departments, when they're reviewed often, get a fairly kind of intensive process, and we do see that it leads to improvements in how they do their work and ... programming,” he said. That is what politician Andrew Mitchell said he had in mind when he established ICAI in 2011, during his tenure leading DFID as secretary of state for international development. “I thought it would be good for the taxpayer and good for the sector,” he told Devex, stressing the importance of proving to a demanding public that its money was being spent effectively. When newspapers and the public raised questions about such concerns, Mitchell said, “We could say, ‘Go to the ICAI if you have doubts about this — don't take our word for it.’” Mitchell said he met some initial resistance from those in the development sector, with some fearing that ICAI would be “bean counters.” He said his view was that “when we get [ODA spending] wrong — which we will from time to time — we need to immediately put up our hands and sort it, and someone truly independent who is looking over us will do that.” That ICAI reports to Parliament, instead of government ministers, is crucial to its independence, Mitchell said, adding that measures were taken to prevent political influence over its staff, such as allowing just one term for the commissioner. An evolving function The U.K. government’s pursuit of a cross-government ODA spending strategy in recent years has made ICAI’s function “even more important,” according to Melissa Leach, director of the Institute of Development Studies. IDC and similar parliamentary committees — which also play a watchdog role for the government — tend to be limited in scope to a single department. But ICAI “has a really important cross-departmental view that complements the work of the individual [parliamentary] select committees,” Leach said. The U.K.’s £14.5 billion ($18.2 billion) ODA pot is largely spent by DFID, which has earned a strong reputation for transparency and effective spending — partly because of the level of scrutiny it receives. But under the cross-government strategy in place since 2015, other departments have been granted more ODA, despite criticism over their low levels of transparency and spending effectiveness. Experts consulted by Devex said ICAI’s scrutiny of cross-governmental ODA spending — such as a report on the Prosperity Fund and another on the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund — had been some of its most valuable work. Barton also cited it as impactful. For example, ICAI’s 2018 report gave CSSF a poor “amber-red” rating in most areas. “When we followed up a year later, we were pleased to see the fund had made important progress … in response,” she said. Starling and others welcomed ICAI’s “How UK Aid Learns” report, while Barton said a separate report on “How DFID Learns” was “very influential in shaping DFID’s internal learning programs.” The recent report on U.K. aid in Ghana — the first time the commission has focused on a single country — was also widely embraced. But Starling added that Bond would like to see further reviews of wealthy U.K. development finance institutions such as the CDC Group and Private Infrastructure Development Group, which have received criticism for financing fossil fuel infrastructure and other controversial investments. There are currently no confirmed plans for reviews into these institutions. The reports produced by ICAI are valuable as a resource for academics and NGOs, according to Michael Jennings, a reader in international development at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. “It makes it easier to find out some of this data that we haven't been able to get hold of before,” he said. Crucially, ICAI’s work is also taken seriously at a senior political level, according to Mitchell. “Ministers worry they will be criticized. … They don’t like that sort of thing,” he said. “It is quite unusual to give up that scrutiny and power to a third and independent party.” ICAI’s Barton admitted that some government officials tell her they “bear scars” from ICAI’s reviews but added that she has also been “impressed” with the level of cooperation her team receives from departments being scrutinized. An ‘amber-green’ rating Despite the often glowing praise for ICAI, it has been criticized for being slow to gain public recognition. The commission is little known outside development circles, and despite the frequency of negative ODA stories in the U.K. press, it is not yet the go-to outfit for journalists reporting on aid spending. “It is fair to say we are not as well known outside development circles as we should be,” Barton said, adding that news coverage of ICAI reports could improve its impact. “We’d like to find ways of being even more known to the media but without compromising our rigor in any way.” While there has been an effort to increase the types of events involving the development community, Barton said, ICAI is also “looking at” how it can better engage the wider public, such as by putting out video summaries on social media. “If they could improve their press strategy so they are cited more … that is where I think they need to be,” Jennings said. Right now, their recognition is “almost nonexistent,” he added. Another common criticism of the commission concerns its “traffic light” scoring system, which results in most reports offering a mild “amber-green” rating and is seen by some as overly simplistic. ICAI reviewed the system in September but decided to keep it, believing it “provided the best combination of robustness and clearly signaling where the government can make improvements,” Barton said. Retaining the same system also meant long-term performance could be more easily monitored, she added. The long-running rumors of a potential merger between DFID and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office have also caused some concern about how ICAI can maintain its critical independence. Development is not seen as a priority for FCO, and the fate of the parliamentary committee that ICAI reports to would be unclear in the event of a merger. Barton admits there is a “potential risk in a merger of a reduction in scrutiny — and given how much the aid program has increased in scale and complexity since the early ‘90s,” when DFID had yet to be established. But she expressed optimism that there will continue to be a need for ICAI’s function. “It's hard to argue the public would be sufficiently reassured without continuing a similar level of scrutiny,” she said. Update, April 16: This story was amended to correct a report title.