What the DFID-FCO merger could mean for the UK's multilateral relationships

LONDON — The U.K. government’s decision to close the Department for International Development has left the country’s multilateral relationships at risk, according to experts. Its status as a top donor to many multilaterals, along with DFID’s respected expertise, means the U.K. has earned a reputation as one of the most influential governments working on development issues. Experts told Devex that the government must take care not to lose that reputation when the department is merged with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in September. In 2019, the U.K. contributed a third of its aid budget — just over £5 billion ($6 billion) — to multilateral organizations including the World Bank; United Nations agencies; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. “A more political approach [to aid] doesn’t necessarily mean reducing support for multilaterals.” --— Romilly Greenhill, U.K. director, ONE Campaign Funding decisions made by the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will likely take place in a more austere environment because of damage to the U.K. economy inflicted by the COVID-19 pandemic. But regardless of whether the U.K. keeps up its big contributions, if DFID’s “quite remarkable” expertise is eroded after the merger and the quality of the staff falls, the country could “definitely” lose influence, according to Dr. Christoph Benn, director for global health diplomacy at the Joep Lange Institute. Benn previously served as an executive to The Global Fund. “In my experience — for many years, dealing with them [donors] on The Global Fund board and other boards — it's the combination of money and expertise. … Just writing a big check doesn’t mean you have all the clout,” he said. Benn continued: “You could also write a small check, but if you have a very smart policy position that is well argued and evidenced, then you can still have a lot of impact. What helped for DFID was they had both — a big check and very thoroughly elaborated policy positions, usually, on almost all topics. That could erode from both sides now.” The government has said it is committed to its multilateral relationships in development and will continue to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid, despite Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s critical remarks about DFID when he announced the department’s closure. Johnson also had a leading appearance at June’s Gavi replenishment summit, hosted by the U.K., which secured a record $8.8 billion in donations, including £1.65 billion from the British government — the largest single contribution. DFID Secretary of State Anne-Marie Trevelyan also told peers in the House of Lords on Tuesday that working within the multilateral system is key to the development component of the U.K.’s post-Brexit Global Britain strategy. “We invest a great deal in the multilateral systems. We invest in cash terms. But perhaps [what] we haven’t been [appreciating] for some years. ... [is] just how important those relationships are and what we can do with them to drive the agendas that are really important” to the prime minister, she said. “The FCO is a lot more bilateral than DFID.” --— Ranil Dissanayake, policy fellow, Center for Global Development To others, though, the department “always stood out” among bilateral development agencies. “DFID — in the context of The Global Fund, Gavi, and many other multilaterals — had a very, very special position … in development overall and global health in particular,” Benn said. Retaining the high quality of DFID’s staff in the new FCDO will be “critical” if the U.K. wants to retain a strong voice in the multilateral system, agreed Romilly Greenhill, U.K. director of the ONE Campaign. “It's going to be really, really important that development expertise is going to be respected in FCDO. … [DFID’s expertise] has been evident in roles in multilaterals and making them more effective,” she said. Greenhill said it was “too early to tell” how the U.K.’s international development standing would be affected — DFID’s merger was only announced last month — but the major role played by the U.K. at Gavi’s replenishment summit was a good indication of commitment to a multilateral project. “A more political approach [to aid] doesn’t necessarily mean reducing support for multilaterals,” Greenhill said. A “good, effective multilateral system” is in the United Kingdom’s broader foreign policy interest, she added. The U.K. relationship to global health projects like Gavi and The Global Fund will probably “stay fairly similar,” according to Ranil Dissanayake, policy fellow at the Center for Global Development. Contributing to these organizations, especially Gavi, is a “pretty easy [development] sell,” he said, as they deliver benefits to both the U.K. and recipient countries amid the coronavirus pandemic. “These are things that the public is much less opposed to,” Dissanayake added. But he also highlighted more subtle ways that the U.K.’s multilateral relationships could change. “The FCO is a lot more bilateral than DFID. … Now with a merged department, there is influence and money going into lots of different bodies,” he said. Dissanayake warned of a cultural difference between the former DFID and FCO staffers who will need to take key positions at multilaterals organizations and make crucial funding decisions. “If FCDO is biased to bilateral action, it might reallocate the aid budget somehow slightly differently,” he suggested. The United Kingdom’s relationship with the World Bank — currently DFID’s responsibility — might also “be up for discussion ... [that] maybe it fits better under the Treasury ... which is what a lot of other countries did,” Dissanayake said. While he acknowledged a change could be for the better if handled well by the Treasury, he said it would need to make use of development expertise within FCDO. In addition to its core funding, the U.K. also funds the World Bank on smaller projects, such as research and trust funds, some of which Dissanayake described as “amazing and really valuable.” “You want a part of that relationship to be handled by people who understand the context and have an expertise in development. That’s something that could change,” he said. The U.K.’s influence at the World Bank was not just down to money, he added, but “really good members on the board … who can speak the language and influence what the bank’s doing.” He agreed that the U.K. could lose influence if these staffers were replaced by others of a lower caliber. “Where influence comes from … it’s not just sheer money — it's what we say and how seriously that’s taken, because there’s a lot of knowledge and experience in the room.”