Closure of DFID’s aid programme in Burundi

The Department for International Development (DFID) has decided to close its bilateral aid programme in Burundi in 2012. Burundi is a fragile country which has experienced decades of civil war. It is one of the poorest countries in the world and is unlikely to meet most of the Millennium Development Goals.

DFID argues that:

• it will continue funding Burundi both through a regional programme Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA) and multilateral donors (the EU, the World Bank, African Development Bank) to which DFID is a major contributor; • other donors will take over bilateral programmes which it has been funding; and • the cost of the office in Burundi is too high in relation to the size of the programme.

We have heard these arguments. We have only been given restricted access to the paperwork which led to the decision to close the bilateral aid programme. This has made our task more difficult, but we believe that DFID should reinstate a bilateral aid programme to Burundi for the following reasons:

• The UK currently has bilateral programmes with all the countries in the Eastern Africa and Great Lakes Region—Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, DRC and South Sudan. The engagement of the UK continues to be critical throughout this region both in perception and reality. For the UK to discontinue its bilateral engagement with just one of those seven states (and that one of the most fragile) not only sends the wrong signals to that country, it also removes DFID’s expertise from a country where it is highly valued at a critical time.

• TMEA promises to be an excellent programme. Indeed, it has already helped to increase Burundi’s collection of tax revenues. However the infrastructure programmes it supports are likely to be of greater use to countries which are now free of conflict and have made more progress in economic development than Burundi.

• There are funding gaps in many sectors in Burundi. It will not be fully clear until the donor conference in the autumn whether other donors will take DFID’s place. There is particular concern amongst donors that DFID will not be continuing its work on justice or governance.

• There is a regional dimension to conflicts in the Great Lakes area and Burundi is particularly fragile. Instability in Burundi could undermine DFID’s significant expenditure in Rwanda, the DRC and the rest of the Great Lakes region. We question the strategic coherence and the compatibility of the decision with DFID policy objectives in relation to fragile and conflict-affected states in greatly increasing UK bilateral aid to the region while closing DFID’s Burundi programme.