UK House panel recommends reduction in aid to Nepal

Kathmandu:

A British parliamentary committee has said aid to Nepal should be reduced if effective action to combat corruption is not pursued vigorously by the government.

The Parliament’s International Development Committee made the statement today through a report, ‘DFID (Department for International Development)’s Bilateral Programme in Nepal’. The report was prepared by British parliamentarians, who recently visited Nepal.

The indication given by British parliamentarians to slash aid to Nepal seems to have stemmed from a report published by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), an independent body responsible for the scrutiny of UK aid, in October 2014.

The ICAI had found that many Nepalis had to pay bribes to government officials or forge documents to receive funds from DFID-funded Local Government and Community Development Programme. The commission had also found that political elite were able to ‘use status to influence direction of government funds’. “There was also strong perception that influential community members were needed to receive funds.”

Surprisingly, DFID knew about these malpractices, the ICAI said in its report, adding, this has raised concerns that the ‘first, do no harm principle has been breached’. This means DFID was afraid of antagonising the government by exerting pressure to correct these malpractices.

The ICAI, thus, recommended that before proceeding with support for government systems and structures known to be corrupt, DFID and the FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) should ‘redress the balance of their relationship with the host government’.

DFID has, however, criticised findings of the report.

“The (ICAI) consultants came with an ideological prejudice, which, frankly, I share — namely that there is a preference for working with the private sector rather than with the government,” DFID Minister of State Desmond Swayne is quoted as saying in the British parliamentary committee report.

Swayne said DFID could ‘go with their suggestion of working much more with NGOs (non-governmental organisations) rather than through government systems’. “But I would suggest that NGOs are as prone to corruption in a corrupt society as the government.”

Nevertheless, even if DFID decided to work more with NGOs, it won’t ‘have the capability to manage programmes running through any number of NGOs’, the British state minister said. “Whereas, if we put — as we have done — our people and our technical support into the ministries, we (can) build the capacity and the strength of the government to create an infrastructure that will last. If you build up an alternative system through the private sector or through NGOs, it will not persist any longer than you are funding it.”

The parliamentary committee report has, thus, said: “We do not see the use of local NGOs in place of the state as a panacea; in corrupt societies, NGOs can also be corrupt. If Nepal is to become less corrupt, improvements in governance and a change of culture have to be made to state institutions.”

The committee has also recommended that ‘DFID continue to work through state institutions, but ensure funding is linked to improvements in performance’.

DFID Nepal’s budget increased from £55.93 million in 2012-13 to £104.7 million in 2013-14 and stood at £86 million in 2014-15.

“DFID’s large budget in Nepal can only be justified if there are such improvements, and should be reduced if effective action to combat corruption is not pursued vigorously by the government,” said the report.

Corruption is ‘endemic’ in the country. It was ranked 126th out of 175 countries in Transparency International’s Global Corruption Perception Index in 2014, down from 116 in 2013.

With this, Nepal’s score in the index fell to 29 from 31 in 2013. Countries, whose scores are below 50 are seen as highly corrupt, while those whose scores are closer to 100 are considered as highly clean.

The government time and again says it is trying to reduce the incidence of corruption. Yet, the country has not been able to achieve much on this front.

“Much will depend on whether Nepal can achieve progress on the Rule of Law. Although the Supreme Court seems largely willing to challenge the executive, there are concerns about politicisation in the judiciary, legal profession and police,” said the report, adding. “Impunity is a pervasive problem.”

Source: THTKathmandu:

A British parliamentary committee has said aid to Nepal should be reduced if effective action to combat corruption is not pursued vigorously by the government.

The Parliament’s International Development Committee made the statement today through a report, ‘DFID (Department for International Development)’s Bilateral Programme in Nepal’. The report was prepared by British parliamentarians, who recently visited Nepal.

The indication given by British parliamentarians to slash aid to Nepal seems to have stemmed from a report published by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), an independent body responsible for the scrutiny of UK aid, in October 2014.

The ICAI had found that many Nepalis had to pay bribes to government officials or forge documents to receive funds from DFID-funded Local Government and Community Development Programme. The commission had also found that political elite were able to ‘use status to influence direction of government funds’. “There was also strong perception that influential community members were needed to receive funds.”

Surprisingly, DFID knew about these malpractices, the ICAI said in its report, adding, this has raised concerns that the ‘first, do no harm principle has been breached’. This means DFID was afraid of antagonising the government by exerting pressure to correct these malpractices.

The ICAI, thus, recommended that before proceeding with support for government systems and structures known to be corrupt, DFID and the FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) should ‘redress the balance of their relationship with the host government’.

DFID has, however, criticised findings of the report.

“The (ICAI) consultants came with an ideological prejudice, which, frankly, I share — namely that there is a preference for working with the private sector rather than with the government,” DFID Minister of State Desmond Swayne is quoted as saying in the British parliamentary committee report.

Swayne said DFID could ‘go with their suggestion of working much more with NGOs (non-governmental organisations) rather than through government systems’. “But I would suggest that NGOs are as prone to corruption in a corrupt society as the government.”

Nevertheless, even if DFID decided to work more with NGOs, it won’t ‘have the capability to manage programmes running through any number of NGOs’, the British state minister said. “Whereas, if we put — as we have done — our people and our technical support into the ministries, we (can) build the capacity and the strength of the government to create an infrastructure that will last. If you build up an alternative system through the private sector or through NGOs, it will not persist any longer than you are funding it.”

The parliamentary committee report has, thus, said: “We do not see the use of local NGOs in place of the state as a panacea; in corrupt societies, NGOs can also be corrupt. If Nepal is to become less corrupt, improvements in governance and a change of culture have to be made to state institutions.”

The committee has also recommended that ‘DFID continue to work through state institutions, but ensure funding is linked to improvements in performance’.

DFID Nepal’s budget increased from £55.93 million in 2012-13 to £104.7 million in 2013-14 and stood at £86 million in 2014-15.

“DFID’s large budget in Nepal can only be justified if there are such improvements, and should be reduced if effective action to combat corruption is not pursued vigorously by the government,” said the report.

Corruption is ‘endemic’ in the country. It was ranked 126th out of 175 countries in Transparency International’s Global Corruption Perception Index in 2014, down from 116 in 2013.

With this, Nepal’s score in the index fell to 29 from 31 in 2013. Countries, whose scores are below 50 are seen as highly corrupt, while those whose scores are closer to 100 are considered as highly clean.

The government time and again says it is trying to reduce the incidence of corruption. Yet, the country has not been able to achieve much on this front.

“Much will depend on whether Nepal can achieve progress on the Rule of Law. Although the Supreme Court seems largely willing to challenge the executive, there are concerns about politicisation in the judiciary, legal profession and police,” said the report, adding. “Impunity is a pervasive problem.”

Source: THT