In a world that has become increasingly interconnected changes in Dutch aid will have consequence – even if they’re small – in a country like Uganda where many Dutch funded development activities take place. So, this blog would be incomplete if I wouldn't give it some thoughts.

Last week the Dutch department for Development Cooperation announced which NGO alliances in the Netherlands were granted funds for the next 5 years. The number of grants would decrease drastically and even the winners of those few grants were ‘losers’ to some extent, since every organisation knew it would face budget cuts – as much as over 25%.

Another development is that the newly formed rightwing government removed the Minister for Development Cooperation and replaced the post with a Secretary of State, which at the same time has to manage the portfolio for European Cooperation. The new aid policy will soon be in the making, but our Prime Minister Mr. Rutte already declared ‘there is no money going to corrupt governments’. On top of that the Dutch development sector is still trying to get its head around the report ‘Less pretention, more ambition’ published by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) in April 2010.

What to think of these trends? And how do they match the international reality? E.g. the biggest hits of the financial crisis were felt in the South, with long lasting consequences. The institutions responsible in the North now continue, saved after billions of government support *. In the words of my colleague Rosalind Eyben (IDS): they have put Humpty Dumpty back on the wall again; no revision of the world’s financial structures has taken place.

So, on the one hand, there is a report calling for attention for global questions and global public goods (would financial stability be one?). On the other hand, recent events indicate how development issues might disappear to the background. Dutch foreign aid is now headed by half a Secretary; a significant sign that development aid has gone down on the list of priorities. And having a double portfolio will the Secretary have the time to address the challenges outlined by the WRR report?

Then locally. Uganda suffered local food insecurity due to crisis, companies closed leading to unemployment, prices went up, and some effects have not yet vanished**. To what extent should we weigh such issues (that are nearly forgotten since the crisis is no longer news) in crafting our aid programme and budgets? Also, Uganda is a country where corruption is a major problem in spending public resources. Will it disappear from the aid recipient list? Yet, would it not be wiser to support governance systems that improve implementation of government policies? What about strengthening the relation between citizens and their representatives and enhance parliament’s oversight role, and support mechanisms for citizen participation such as participatory budgeting and monitoring? However, now that funds to Dutch NGOs have decreased especially that last activity becomes difficult. Moreover, citizen engagement is one of the intangible processes that are less valued by a donor like the Netherlands (Remko Berkhout, forthcoming).

So, while we are urged to think about global issues and interconnections, while we should be concerned about how northern activities have consequences in the South... Our government seems to go into opposite direction. and does not consider this context. But; it has just started, so let’s hope for the best.

* Susan George: Prevailing policy for our times: reward the guilty, punish the innocent. http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en (2 November 2010)

**For more information on local level impact of crisis see: Hossain, N. (2010) The Social Impacts of Crisis one year on: findings from community-level research in five developing countries. Research Summary, May 1 2010. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Free to download from www.ids.ac.uk