The UK is threatening to switch funding away from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation unless its performance improves, BBC News has learned.

Instead, more funding could go to the World Food Programme, which deals with emergency food aid around the globe.

The FAO deals with longer term projects, such as providing seeds and tools for agriculture, and the UK is reviewing how effective this work is.

The announcement will be made in a major review of aid spending next week.

As a major aid donor, any cut or change in UK funding of UN programmes is likely to have a big impact.
Founding member

The UK was a founding member of the FAO, which was set up in 1945.

However, the BBC's international development correspondent David Loyn says the government view is that membership is not bringing results and that it might go as far as to cut that membership altogether.

As part of a major review of aid funding to be unveiled next week by Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, the UK will also announce an increase in aid to individual countries to improve their ability to grow food.
Britain's funding significant

Mr Mitchell is under pressure to make every penny count as his budget is one of the only parts of government spending that will see an increase this year.

David Loyn says any change to the UK's aid funding will be significant.

"Britain is a very big beast in the aid jungle, which is why these decisions - if they actually go as far as cutting whole programmes or increasing whole programmes in the UN - will make a big difference," he says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12586783

Could the problem with the FAO be that we Brits don't get to bask in it's rosy glow? China, America and France use international aid to advance strategic aims more than we do. This all sounds like an excuse to do the same to me, a bit of UK Plc corporate branding on something that people will be grateful for receiving.

As long as it's intended to efficiently deliver sorely needed aid I'm not concerned by a little sinister intent. But the work that the FAO is incorporated for is exceptionally important, so if there's a real problem with it then addressing this deficiency is equally important.

Brazil has a highly regarded agricultural development agency, whereas Britain has savagely cut its own. Perhaps we should divert some of that aid cash to a joint venture with them to develop better agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Teach a man to fish and all that. Otherwise we should put our own agr-dev house in order before we start accusing the UN of failing in that regard.

You might be onto something there:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12589626