How will safeguarding be affected by ODA reductions?
The dust is settling, albeit a little, on the government's recent announcement to reduce ODA (Official Development Assistance).
The financial cost of ODA is often banded around, particularly during elections, and, unsurprisingly, it is often a heated debate between those who think more should be spent and others who think less. It's usually polarising and ultimately tricky to find a middle ground.
However, I'm not going to speak on that issue. Rightly or wrongly, the decision has been made to reduce it in favour of defense spending.
The issue that I'm troubled by is: where does this leave the matter of safeguarding? Ensuring that all work is carried out correctly, with respect and dignity for all on International Development Projects should surely be a priority. The matter of safeguarding is an important and delicate one. Arguably a hugely under-funded area that isn't always seen as a priority.
The FCDO launched the SEAH program in 2018, which set out the standards they expect personnel, businesses and charities to adhere to when working on government-funded international development work. The standards are straightforward and fair, on the face of it; although, in my humble opinion, they don't go far enough and are reliant on good faith far too much. Nevertheless, they are in place. However, the issue of reporting breaches, training personnel on how to improve working cultures, and how to ensure breaches are dealt with effectively still remains.
We have all seen or heard of when things go wrong on these projects in remote locations, the Oxfam scandal is the one that automatically springs to mind. Arguably, progress has been made since then and some lessons have been learned and to a point implemented, but nonetheless, dealing with the matter is far from where it should be.
This therefore begs the question of how this matter will now fare when funds are depleted. Changing a working environment, particularly when there are so many stakeholders in play, takes a lot of effort and, of course, money.
As I say, some progress has been made but nowhere near enough. I appreciate the finer details of where the money will actually be spent have not been announced as yet. However, knowing the landscape as I do, having worked on it for many years, my worry is that the area of safeguarding may well be overlooked, yet again, and the progress that has been made may well falter in its advancement or worse regress.
When funding is reduced, this is surely the time to look at how the matter can be dealt with in a better way on a far more effective budgetary footing. Failure to do so may well result in harm being caused to the world's most vulnerable.
