This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/02/boris-johnson-elephants-foreign-aid
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Boris Johnson – take aid from people and give it to elephants? Really? | Boris Johnson – take aid from people and give it to elephants? Really? |
| (about 1 month later) | |
| Boris Johnson used his attention-seeking Telegraph column this week to celebrate the majestic elephant – and to call for the UK to divert a large chunk of the UK’s aid budget into a new global conservation fund. | Boris Johnson used his attention-seeking Telegraph column this week to celebrate the majestic elephant – and to call for the UK to divert a large chunk of the UK’s aid budget into a new global conservation fund. |
| Of course, protecting elephants and other critically endangered species is a laudable aim, and one that the UK government has been actively pursuing through its Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference. Johnson is right that conservation efforts will succeed only if they put the needs and perspectives of local people at the centre. Yet is “aid for elephants” really the answer? | Of course, protecting elephants and other critically endangered species is a laudable aim, and one that the UK government has been actively pursuing through its Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference. Johnson is right that conservation efforts will succeed only if they put the needs and perspectives of local people at the centre. Yet is “aid for elephants” really the answer? |
| Johnson writes: “When I see an African elephant, I feel rage that their population is now down to 300,000, and that we are losing these animals at a rate of 8% a year. I see one of the most heartbreaking examples of the destruction that humanity is wreaking upon the natural world.” | Johnson writes: “When I see an African elephant, I feel rage that their population is now down to 300,000, and that we are losing these animals at a rate of 8% a year. I see one of the most heartbreaking examples of the destruction that humanity is wreaking upon the natural world.” |
| So far so compelling. But presumably he is equally enraged and heartbroken that 14.6 million people in the Horn of Africa are facing severe food insecurity – and the UN aid appeal there remains chronically short of funding? And that more than 40 million people displaced from their homes by devastating conflict receive almost no international aid? Johnson surely has a heart big enough to encompass both desperate human need and the fragile wonders of nature. If so, how can he invite people to compare the value of a human life to that of an elephant and argue that the British public care more about the latter than the former? | So far so compelling. But presumably he is equally enraged and heartbroken that 14.6 million people in the Horn of Africa are facing severe food insecurity – and the UN aid appeal there remains chronically short of funding? And that more than 40 million people displaced from their homes by devastating conflict receive almost no international aid? Johnson surely has a heart big enough to encompass both desperate human need and the fragile wonders of nature. If so, how can he invite people to compare the value of a human life to that of an elephant and argue that the British public care more about the latter than the former? |
| But of course that is precisely what this proposal does when we dig beneath the surface. Johnson’s argument ducks the difficult ethical questions about what Britain’s aid budget is for. Can he really be suggesting that redirecting aid from projects providing community health projects in South Sudan or supporting refugees from the war in Syria is the right thing to do? He avoids presenting anything but beneficial human consequences from this decision; but this does not mean the consequences are not real, and indeed could cause harm to already vulnerable people. | But of course that is precisely what this proposal does when we dig beneath the surface. Johnson’s argument ducks the difficult ethical questions about what Britain’s aid budget is for. Can he really be suggesting that redirecting aid from projects providing community health projects in South Sudan or supporting refugees from the war in Syria is the right thing to do? He avoids presenting anything but beneficial human consequences from this decision; but this does not mean the consequences are not real, and indeed could cause harm to already vulnerable people. |
| The former foreign secretary suggests that focusing aid solely on poverty eradication – which is the legally defined purpose of aid as agreed by parliament – is contrary to the will, and to the disadvantage, of the British people. His proposal comes on top of a number of subtle changes in the use of the UK aid budget: more of this money is going to other departments for projects often with only a tenuous connection to improving the lives of poor people around the world, in the belief it will promote British interests and make aid “more effective”. | The former foreign secretary suggests that focusing aid solely on poverty eradication – which is the legally defined purpose of aid as agreed by parliament – is contrary to the will, and to the disadvantage, of the British people. His proposal comes on top of a number of subtle changes in the use of the UK aid budget: more of this money is going to other departments for projects often with only a tenuous connection to improving the lives of poor people around the world, in the belief it will promote British interests and make aid “more effective”. |
| The aid budget is not a cookie jar to be raided on a whim | The aid budget is not a cookie jar to be raided on a whim |
| But the evidence suggests otherwise. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact and parliament’s international development select committee have both found that trying to use aid for self-interested priorities rarely achieves them, and lessens the impact of that money in achieving development goals. While the Department for International Development has one of the world’s best records for the transparency and effectiveness with which it spends aid money (according to the International Aid Transparency Index), the Foreign Office over which Johnson presided has one of the worst. So taking money away from the department that spends it best can only be a bad thing when it comes to using taxpayers’ money overseas. | But the evidence suggests otherwise. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact and parliament’s international development select committee have both found that trying to use aid for self-interested priorities rarely achieves them, and lessens the impact of that money in achieving development goals. While the Department for International Development has one of the world’s best records for the transparency and effectiveness with which it spends aid money (according to the International Aid Transparency Index), the Foreign Office over which Johnson presided has one of the worst. So taking money away from the department that spends it best can only be a bad thing when it comes to using taxpayers’ money overseas. |
| In his piece, Johnson even celebrates the blatantly self-interested ways in which some countries (such as Japan) misuse their aid budgets to grease the wheels of their own industries, as if it were a moral good for Britain to sink to their level. “Everywhere you go, you will find other countries that subtly or openly use their development aid budgets as leverage to support their exports,” he writes glowingly. Yet the reason Britain’s aid budget “wins Britain friends and admirers around the world”, as Johnson himself puts it, is precisely because of the quality, consistency and evidence base of UK aid. Reducing the calibre of Britain’s aid not only risks harming some of the world’s poorest people, it will also damage our well-earned international reputation. | In his piece, Johnson even celebrates the blatantly self-interested ways in which some countries (such as Japan) misuse their aid budgets to grease the wheels of their own industries, as if it were a moral good for Britain to sink to their level. “Everywhere you go, you will find other countries that subtly or openly use their development aid budgets as leverage to support their exports,” he writes glowingly. Yet the reason Britain’s aid budget “wins Britain friends and admirers around the world”, as Johnson himself puts it, is precisely because of the quality, consistency and evidence base of UK aid. Reducing the calibre of Britain’s aid not only risks harming some of the world’s poorest people, it will also damage our well-earned international reputation. |
| Even more fundamentally, Johnson portrays UK aid as an act of largesse that politicians can use on a whim to fund whatever causes they feel most passionately about beyond our own borders, or whatever wins them most applause from voters. But the history of our aid budget is not just one of charity but also one of justice, recognising Britain’s historic responsibility for the causes of poverty elsewhere and the longstanding commitment we have made to stand in solidarity with those people who are in most need, giving them a voice in how it can be used most effectively and investing in long-term solutions. The people who deserve the most say over the aid budget are not politicians, nor even the British public, but the people whom it is intended to serve: the communities striving to lift themselves out of poverty. Aid – like conservation – most often goes wrong when those on the ground are cut out of the discussion, and instead the shiny schemes of politicians or the top-down edicts of mandarins are forced on local people. | Even more fundamentally, Johnson portrays UK aid as an act of largesse that politicians can use on a whim to fund whatever causes they feel most passionately about beyond our own borders, or whatever wins them most applause from voters. But the history of our aid budget is not just one of charity but also one of justice, recognising Britain’s historic responsibility for the causes of poverty elsewhere and the longstanding commitment we have made to stand in solidarity with those people who are in most need, giving them a voice in how it can be used most effectively and investing in long-term solutions. The people who deserve the most say over the aid budget are not politicians, nor even the British public, but the people whom it is intended to serve: the communities striving to lift themselves out of poverty. Aid – like conservation – most often goes wrong when those on the ground are cut out of the discussion, and instead the shiny schemes of politicians or the top-down edicts of mandarins are forced on local people. |
| Protecting the natural world and boosting human flourishing are not mutually exclusive. All poverty reduction should be sustainable, and sustainability must work for people as much as planet. The people of the world’s poorest countries often rely far more on the health of their natural environments than those in richer nations, which is why climate change hits them first and hardest. Yet the aid budget is the one financial instrument solely focused on reducing poverty. If money is needed for conservation – and it surely is – there are other sources of revenue which politicians can look to, from Defra’s budget to levies on companies causing deforestation. The aid budget is not a cookie jar to be raided on a whim, or a magic money tree. Spending aid well requires a steady combination of hard-headed decisions and a compassionate heart. | Protecting the natural world and boosting human flourishing are not mutually exclusive. All poverty reduction should be sustainable, and sustainability must work for people as much as planet. The people of the world’s poorest countries often rely far more on the health of their natural environments than those in richer nations, which is why climate change hits them first and hardest. Yet the aid budget is the one financial instrument solely focused on reducing poverty. If money is needed for conservation – and it surely is – there are other sources of revenue which politicians can look to, from Defra’s budget to levies on companies causing deforestation. The aid budget is not a cookie jar to be raided on a whim, or a magic money tree. Spending aid well requires a steady combination of hard-headed decisions and a compassionate heart. |
| We can but hope that Johnson will turn his literary talent to eulogise as passionately about the majesty and inherent worth of every single human being as he does about elephants. Then he might see the injustice of taking from the aid budget to protect wildlife at the expense of people in desperate need. | We can but hope that Johnson will turn his literary talent to eulogise as passionately about the majesty and inherent worth of every single human being as he does about elephants. Then he might see the injustice of taking from the aid budget to protect wildlife at the expense of people in desperate need. |
| • Laura Taylor is head of global advocacy for Christian Aid | • Laura Taylor is head of global advocacy for Christian Aid |
| Aid | Aid |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Boris Johnson | Boris Johnson |
| Foreign policy | Foreign policy |
| Conservatives | Conservatives |
| Conservative conference 2018 | Conservative conference 2018 |
| Poverty | Poverty |
| Trade policy | |
| comment | comment |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |