Ransford Smith | The Commonwealth: History and relevance – Part 2

PUNCHING ABOVE INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL WEIGHT

The Commonwealth has maintained a significant global profile. We can identify some reasons for this. At the forefront are the Commonwealth’s substantial convening power – at both political and technical levels - and the quality and effectiveness of its global advocacy. This advocacy was focussed initially on decolonisation and apartheid. More recently, it has been on the special situation and development needs of small states and on global issues such as debt relief and climate change.

A particular strength of the Commonwealth is its unique make-up. It should be recognised that the Commonwealth is actually more than an association of sovereign states: it has been described as a network – a network of nations, of professional and other bodies, and of peoples. There is a long history of collaborating and working with non-governmental organisations and civil society.

The Commonwealth family network includes a large number of professional associations and civil society organisation – ranging from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Commonwealth Games Federation, which organises the Commonwealth Games, and the Association of Commonwealth Universities (which administers scholarship programmes with more than 90,000 alumni) to lesser known entities such as the Commonwealth Dental Association, the Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy, and even an Association of Commonwealth Archivists and Records Managers. These essentially autonomous bodies, numbering well over 80, have been accredited by Commonwealth member governments based on their demonstrated commitment to the values and principles of the Commonwealth. They assume rights and responsibilities associated with the Commonwealth name and brand, and impart vibrancy, outreach, and an important dimension of relevance to the Commonwealth and its activities.

SIGNIFICANT VOICE

In multilateral circles, it is generally recognised that the Commonwealth, over the years, has been a significant voice on a range of issues, and, on occasion, has broken new ground in advocacy and intellectual contribution. The Commonwealth Langkawi Declaration of 1989 addressed climate change long before the global community awoke to the gravity of this threat. The special plight of small states was drawn to global attention by the Commonwealth Consultative Group established in 1983 by then Secretary General Sir Shridath Ramphal. The Commonwealth’s early advocacy on behalf of highly indebted countries led eventually to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and Multilateral Debt Relief (MDRI) Initiatives.

The Commonwealth’s traditional focus on knowledge and skills transmission, on strengthening institutions, and improving public functions and processes, is important for developing countries. Significantly too, the Commonwealth Secretariat has gained a solid reputation in a number of relevant areas, such as debt management, where its debt recording and management software is widely utilised and has extended beyond the Commonwealth itself; in maritime boundaries delimitation and ocean management, of especial interest to small island states; in trade capacity building; developing a framework for assessing the economic vulnerability of small states; and through the establishment of various networks to engage Commonwealth youth.

In other areas, the Commonwealth has made use of its convening power and competencies to undertake capacity building and to facilitate peer learning and exchange of knowledge. This has been pursued through the establishment of communities of practice, development of toolkits and model laws, and establishment of institutional mechanisms such as centres of excellence. These activities have included, by way of example, numerous election observer missions carried out; support for the establishment of anti-corruption and integrity commissions; establishment of the Commonwealth Climate Finance Hub in Mauritius; in trade and investment – initiation of the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda; assistance with national export strategies; support for legal reform, including promotion of the digitisation of justice systems ; and on small states – in recent years establishment of a Commonwealth Small States Centre of Excellence and a Small States Trade Finance Facility in Malta.

The inescapable fact, though, is that the range and multiplicity of its activities have tended to obscure the reality that the Commonwealth Secretariat in London – which the secretary general heads – is but a modest-sized organisation with an even more modest resource envelope that bears absolutely no comparison whatsoever to that of leading multilateral and bilateral organisations. At their peak in recent decades, annual contributions to support the work of the Secretariat have been collectively only about £50 million. Of this amount, about £30 million have been voluntary contributions to the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation which is dedicated to development assistance. This is an exceedingly small budgetary amount for development cooperation – an area in which major multilateral and bilateral partners regularly spend billions of pounds annually. For example, as recently as the 2019-2020 fiscal year, just before it was merged into the UK Foreign Office, the development cooperation budget of the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) was £10.8 billion.

DECLINING RESOURCES

To compound matters, and this is of especial concern, the resources available to the Commonwealth Secretariat, and to its development arm, the CFTC, have, for the most part, shown steady decline over the past three decades. This declining trend has been greatly amplified in recent fiscal years. For 2018-2019, financial contributions received by the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation amounted to only £13 million, which is less than half the contribution level for development assistance and capacity building of a decade ago. CFTC expenditure – the primary source of development assistance to members – with four months or so affected by COVID-19 – was, for the financial year ending June 2020, only £11.78 million. The Commonwealth Youth Programme expenditure for this period was a mere £1.89 million.

The Commonwealth Secretariat Strategic Plan for the three-year period 2021-22 – 2024-25, which was approved in September of last year, notes the decline in voluntary contributions and acknowledges that this may result in “a smaller envelope of programme funding in the coming years”. The Plan cautions that this “will constrain the Secretariat’s capacity to deliver services to members”.

The Secretariat’s staff complement has also fallen from more than 300 members a decade ago,to 212 during the 2018-19 fiscal year, with some of this attrition driven by internal reform.

This situation has led some observers to speak of a crisis, and even to raise the spectre of terminal decline. The fact is that several tributaries, building over time, have come together to create the currents that threaten organisational harm. These include long-standing questioning by major developed Commonwealth members of the effectiveness and impact of the Commonwealth’s technical assistance and capacity-building activities in the development field. Another, and a related factor, is the equally long-standing underlying tension among Commonwealth members regarding the nature and the balance of priorities to be pursued by the Secretariat.

UNDER SCRUTINY

As a consequence, the Commonwealth Secretariat’s technical assistance and capacity-building activities – which underpin its vital engagement on development cooperation – have been under increased scrutiny from major developed members for more than a decade. Three members – the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada – have historically contributed more than 70 per cent of the total resources available to the Commonwealth Secretariat, including to its two funds, the CFTC and the CYP.

A 2011 Multilateral Aid Review undertaken by the United Kingdom’s DFID found the Commonwealth Secretariat to be a ‘poor’ DFID partner. Subsequently, in 2013, DFID found the Commonwealth Secretariat to be making progress, particularly in financial management, but with “much less evidence of stronger contribution to development objectives.” At the time, DFID also indicated its own – that is, UK – reform modalities for the Secretariat’s work. These included “(g)reater focus and prioritisation while exiting from development activities where it does not have a comparative advantage.”

In 2016, during the first year of the current secretary general’s incumbency, in another comprehensive review, DFID noted that while the Commonwealth Secretariat had worked to sharpen its strategic focus and reduce the number of projects it manages, “its commitment to delivering better value for money has not been demonstrated”. Prioritisation and focusing on comparative advantage were also important concerns of an AusAID Review – conducted by Australia.

The result of all this is that over the past several years, the Commonwealth Secretariat, under the critical and watchful eye especially of its major funding members, has been working to improve financial and project management and to strengthen development impact.

In short, the interplay between resources, needs, and priorities, which bedevil all organisations, has been playing out with acute and constrictive effect in recent times at the Commonwealth Secretariat.

- Ransford Smith is former deputy secretary general of the Commonwealth. He recently spoke on the Commonwealth and its relevance in a lecture series hosted by the Institute of International Relations, St Augustine, and the Diplomatic Academy of the Caribbean. This is second of a three-part article series based on his talk. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.