Independent Commission for Aid Impact Warns On Aid Fraud

Andrew Mitchell Aid

First Posted: 22/11/11 00:28 Updated: 22/11/11 00:28   PA

The rapid expansion of Britain's international aid programme has left it increasingly exposed to corruption and fraud, the new independent watchdog has warned.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) described the Department for International Development's approach to tackling fraud corruption as "fragmented" and in need of "significant improvements".

Publishing its first reports, the ICAI rated DfID's anti-corruption effort as "amber-red" on a traffic light rating system - meaning that it is "not performing well".

The commission's finding will provide fresh ammunition for critics who say the Government should not be increasing international aid at a time of painful spending cuts at home.

The ICAI said its rating was "strongly influenced" by the Government's decision to rapidly increase the aid budget to 0.7% of gross national income while channelling a greater proportion to "fragile and conflict-affected states".

"This inevitably will expose the UK aid budget to higher levels of corruption risk," it said. "Our assessment is that DfID's current organisation of responsibilities for fraud and corruption is fragmented and that this inhibits a coherent and strategic response to this critical issue.

"DfID needs to give significantly greater attention to the fight against corruption to manage this increasing risk."

The ICAI said the lack of any attempt by DfID to quantify the losses due to corruption made it difficult to assess how effective its risk management had been.

Two ICAI reports looking at specific aid projects in Bangladesh and Zimbabwe rated both programmes "green amber", meaning they were performing well but in need of some improvements.

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell said: "I have already changed how the UK delivers aid to ensure it is focused on tangible results on the ground but we will use these reports to identify further reforms."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Filed by Dina Rickman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:23 on 22/11/2011
No s**t Sherlock, took a while for them to work that one out, sharp as a scalpel some people.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:21 on 22/11/2011
The reality of foreign aid can be explained by the following article:

http://britain-watch.co.uk/2011/03/the-realities-of-british-overseas-aid/

"What does DfID actually spend the taxpayers’ money on

The Secretary of State Andrew Mitchell has made great play of openness (transparency) such that the DfID website now records each payment it makes of £25,000 or more month by month. A typical month, say September 2010, shows that of the 665 items of over £25,000 listed averaging just under £1 million, most turn out to be grants to other agencies, whose websites do not generally disclose what they spend these grants on. These included: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), British university research institutes, centres with non-specific names, consultancies like Oxford Policy Management, Third Party Monies (sic), Adam Smith International, One world, United Nations agencies like UN Habitat, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the International Medical Corps (UK), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The World Bank) [the list goes on] Robson Associates (property management), and the Crown Agents who received over £100 million in September. Some bodies, including the Overseas Development Institute, seem to derive most, if not all, their income from DfID.

It is doubtful if the British people who said they approved of foreign aid would identify most of these recipients with humanitarian help, which is what most mean by foreign aid."