Slashing UK's foreign aid: what this means for the WaSH sector

For this blog, I want to take a quick break from talking about contemporary water and agricultural issues in Africa, as water is also fundamental for sanitation and health. Here I will discuss a recent change in UK legislation which upset and drove me to research the impact it will have on Africa's WaSH sector.

This month as part of the annual spending review, the UK government has reduced its aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income (GNI). The news of overseas aid being cut by a third frustrated many and even led to the Foreign Office minister, Baroness Sugg, resigning. After hearing this news, I was shocked that during a global pandemic the government has decided to reduce aid spending which could be utilised to help provide much-needed basic handwashing facilities that 3 billion people worldwide lack to help mitigate against the spread of COVID-19 (UN, 2020).

Official Development Assistance (ODA) can be given as bilateral aid where direct assistance is given another country or multilateral aid where governments pool funds together for international organisations. The United Nations set a target in 1970 for international aid spending to be at least 0.7% of GNI in donor countries to promote long-term economic growth and development in receiving countries. Only six countries have ever met this target with the UK now lowering that number to five (UN, 2016). There is no set list of who should receive aid and what it should be used on. There are a whole host of reasons from altruistic interests, (post)colonial relationships and geopolitical partnerships as to why certain countries receive more aid over others (Alesina and Dollar, 2000).  

Countries with the highest total official development assistance (ODA) in 2019 as a percentage of gross national income (OECD, 2020).

In total, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has received more aid than any other region with over US$52 million being given in assistance in 2017 from governments globally (OECD, 2019). Some argue that this aid is not developing SSA but has kept corrupt governments in power and the aid is undercutting local businesses. However, if we look at aid beyond just the focus of economic development of a whole nation and instead look at sector-specific goals in improving the daily lives of those in need many positives can be seen especially in achieving several of the UNs SDGs. WaSH (water, sanitation and hygiene) sector aid is one such example which is helping achieve SDG6.

WaSH aid

Photo: (OECD, 2019)

From 1960 to 2009 WaSH aid has increased from 800 million to nearly 14 billion US dollars with SSA receiving around a quarter of all global WaSH aid. Most of this is spent on large-scale (water supply and sewage) infrastructural projects and water resource policy and management (OECD, 2019).

However, the effectiveness of this aid is undermined by the lack of engagement with the local geographical specificities and the needs of the surrounding communities meaning that projects can become underutilised by locals. It is therefore important that aid donors setting up these large drinking water systems acknowledge the diversity of cultures, histories and needs across SSA and take seriously the local/indigenous ways of managing the environment and avoid applying ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions predicated on Western ideals.

Photo: (UN, 2020)

Undeniably, WaSH aid has improved access to water and sanitation in SSA improving the living conditions for many. Infant mortality related to waterborne diseases has declined and school enrolment levels especially for girls has increased (Gopalan and Rajan, 2016; Ndikumana and Pickbourn, 2017; Botting et al., 2010). But despite increasing aid to the water sector, there is still a funding gap of 61% to achieve many national WaSH targets (UN, 2020). This image here from the UNs new SDG report (which now considers the threat posed by COVID-19) further highlights why WaSH aid is vitally important in these trying times to financially assist the building and maintenance of WaSH facilities.

With 75% of SSAs population lacking basic handwashing facilities it is deeply disappointing that the UK has decided to reduce its foreign aid when it could be utilised for WaSH projects and many other successful provisions when managed well. Foreign aid can be used unwisely and inadvertently hinder instead of helping those in need. However, when deployed transparently and distributed appropriately on a sector-level basis it holds the potential to improving the lives of many as seen in WaSH aids success.