International Aid and India – An unworthy recipient

James Horrax

Tweet

Should India continue to receive aid from the UK? Photograph: Saurabh Das/AP

Usually your author would attempt to write a balanced a piece which would arrive at a diplomatic conclusion. India receiving British aid is one of those issues which regardless of the worthy intentions of civil servants and ministers still rankles as a glaring aberration of the Government’s decision to maintain and increase the budget for the Department of International Development (DfID) at a time of fiscal austerity. 

Before criticising DfID and its works in India, we should start by recognising a few truths. India is still a poor country – according to the World Bank India’s GDP per capita was just $1,450 compared to a world GDP per capita of $9,228. Despite its recent robust economic growth, according to evidence given by UNICEF to the International Development Committee (IDC) there are around 450 million people living on less than $1.25 per day and around half of the country still practise open defecation. This is a humanitarian shame which is as large in scale as many an instance more frequently publicised in Africa. Each year until 2015, the British Government will spend £280m per year in India. 

To its credit, DfID has also gone out of its way to allay concerns that its development budget will be misallocated by posting details of the various projects which have benefited from its charity on its website. Its attempts to be transparent have been quite successful. The respected Publish What You Fund Pilot Aid Transparency Index ranks Britain joint first among donor countries behind the World Bank, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the African Development Bank. At the urging of the IDC, DfID is focusing its resources on the three poorest states of India – Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. It is felt that here the budgets will have the greatest impact on the local populous. A brief reading of DfIDs website shows that the Government is at pains to explain how they decide where aid is spent. 

Aid is not provided free of responsibilities for recipient countries. Recipient countries (where aid is provided directly to their governments directly) are supposed to share commitments to four principles: 

1. Poverty reduction and the Millennium Development Goals
2. Respecting human rights (from political freedoms, to the rights of minorities including Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender (LBGT) and religious minorities) and other international obligations
3. Improving public financial management, promoting good governance and transparency and fighting corruption
4. Being more accountable to their citizens

Despite progress, India lags some way behind in being an effective partner in some of these areas. Corruption at India’s federal and state level is widely acknowledged as being commonplace. The site ipaidabribe.com acts a register of Indians who have attempted to access Government services only to be required to pay a bribe. The stories are as numerous as they are troubling.

Rafale - The poverty which in some states is as bad as more publicised problems in Africa, jars against the Indian Government's determination to purchase Rafale fighter jets. Source: TopNew.in

It is also difficult to claim that poverty reduction is a principle which is a priority for the Indian Government. According to Andy Sumner of the Institute of Development Studies, “If UK aid was reduced, there is no guarantee that the funding to the poorest states where most of India's chronically poor live would be topped up by the Indian government.” This is a charge worth pondering and worth exploring. India was willing to place an order in January of 126 Rafale aircraft at a cost of $10bn. $10bn amounts to over 20 years of British aid at present levels. What about spending this money on the creation of effective state and federal institutions? One of the primary reasons the UK provides aid and logistical services to India is that it lacks the government infrastructure necessary to administer the aid it receives. This is backed up by statistics from DfIDs own breakdown of project sector groups in India which shows 36% of projects being classed under ‘government and civil society’. This is money which could be provided by India easily and simply but which isn’t. 

Aid from Britain to India represents no more than 0.02% of India’s GDP. It is a drop in the ocean – so much so that even India debated whether it should continue to receive it. The total net official development assistance received for 2009 was a little over $2.5bn. With GDP topping $1.7trn, aid represents a measly 0.14% of India’s annual wealth.

At a recent Chatham House event, former British High Commissioner to Uganda, Cyprus and Kenya Sir Edward Clay said, “I would say that if there is a thread that emerges from our aid experiences over the last 50 years it is that it is most effective where countries are absolutely flat on their backs, which is a terrible thing to say, but I think there is some justice in that.” 

India is not flat on its back – though parts of it are. It is within the Indian Government’s ability to create the adequate infrastructure for assisting its own people back on to their feet.

Poverty and Environmental Degradation

Rachael McCallum

Tweet

Desertification near Kade, Central Ghana. Source: Ghana News Agency

Environmental degradation is the result of the interplay of a number of socio-economic factors and activities. Environmental changes can be driven by many factors including but not limited to economic and population growth, urbanization, intensification of agriculture and the usage of natural resources. 

However, poverty still remains the problem at the heart of a number of environmental problems. Environmental degradation and poverty alleviation are urgent issues that need to be addressed by the global community, as a whole, as they are issues which have a lot in common but in development rhetoric are often treated separately. 

Poverty is both a cause and an effect of environmental degradation, there is a circular link between the two, as with many international development challenges, and is very complex. Issues surrounding the environment, economics and policies are all inter-related through the way human beings interact both with each other and with their immediate environment. Whilst, environmental problems are expressed in largely generic terms such as climate change, these problems are of particular concern where they are are localised and are immediate issues, which are not viewed remotely by vulnerable or marginalised groups in many developing countries. These affect the poorer sectors of the population as the problems are directly related to household food security.  

Poverty and inequality impact on environmental degradation as the poor sectors of the population in many developing countries are far more reliant on natural resources. Reversely, a degraded environmental can accelerate poverty and inequality because the poor are to a larger extent dependent on directly natural resources. 

To ensure food security, households often have no choice but to overuse the natural resources available to them, resulting in environmental degradation. This degradation then results in constraints resulting in the vicious cycle of poverty and environmental degradation. That said, it is important to remind ourselves that the world's poor are both agents and victims, and that there is no inherent inclination to degrade the environment. 

Impact of Climate Change on the landscape resulting in desertification Source: Scientific American    

Whilst, this takes the problem down to its most simplified level, acceleration in poverty alleviation is no doubt imperative to break the link, as is more considered environmental policy and action at all levels: local, regional, national and international. However, it is also important to address the ongoing concern and belief that for less economically developed countries to continue to development that they may need to sacrifice environmental concerns or that it is a luxury to address when higher standards of living are achieved. This stems from the belief that the world's increasing population and the resultant excessive burden on the world's natural resources is the current systemic root course of environmental degradation. 

It is important that lessons are learnt from the environmental damaging processes of the world's longest industrialised nations; these lessons must be learnt and applied. Sustainability is the key for a better balanced relationship between development and the environment. However, the overloaded and overused phrase sustainable development must be used by practioners to recognise the interconnectedness between human beings and the environment if true progress is to be made. 

There has in recent years, been somewhat of a shift in this rhetoric, with developing countries becoming more engaged in environmental issues, in particular Africa, as it is one of continents more directly experiencing the effects of climate change. The engagement of developing countries is important in ensuring the shift from this rather antiquated notion to one that actively pursues the need to tailor the velocity and blueprint of global economic growth to Earth's carrying capacity. This has to happen now to ensure that we make development sustainable and that "we can meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was published in 1987.)

As environmental degradation has continued to worsen and in doing so has exacerbated poverty and food security, there has been a conscience development in the importance placed on environmental conservation. However, more needs to be done in terms of transformative new strategies to combine policies and practices in the areas of poverty alleviation and environmental conservation. 

Melting ice in the Artic, an area most at risk from the impact of Climate Change Source: Guardian

There needs to be a greater appreciation in development policy by national governments and international communities for integrated poverty and environmental programs, particularly in marginalised areas, to allow for a concerted effort to promote a new perception and relationship for those living in poverty with their immediate environment. 

It is imperative that we remember that climate change and environmental degradation affects everyone on the planet, but to differing degrees depending on their level of economic development and consumption patterns, including their use of fossil fuels and their relationship to their immediate environment. 

While this is a somewhat oversimplified view that just scratches the surface, the main principle is that we need to understand these issues more. The interconnectedness talked about above needs to have greater recognition if the environmental degradation and poverty nexus is to be sufficiently addressed through specific long-term strategies. We must analyse all parts of the whole, and in some cases, turn to the populations in marginalised areas, where people through necessity have found creative and innovative solutions to cope with their environment.