The Commons: UK Moves Further On Aid Cuts
Earlier this month, the UK government announced it was pledging an aid package of £13 million to the Democratic Republic of Congo, following a visit to the DRC by the Minister for Africa and International Development, Baroness Jenny Chapman.
In a press release, the government provided a detailed account of the visit made by Chapman, where she had the opportunity to meet with the President of the Congo, Félix Tshisekedi, as well as to hear “first hand from those delivering frontline services including UN peacekeepers, aid workers, midwives and women peacebuilders.”
It then went on to detail the £13 million package intended to provide life-saving assistance, protection services, and support for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, as well as new UK-backed investments aimed at driving sustainable economic growth, including expanding finance for small businesses and support for clean energy projects.” The government also pledged a further £7.3 million in extra humanitarian support to those affected by the escalating conflict in the eastern DRC and across the wider region.
“The situation remains urgent for communities in eastern DRC,” stated Chapman. “It’s vital that the international community stays engaged. The UK is stepping up support to save lives, protect civilians and back women and communities working for peace on the ground. At the same time, we are using our aid investment and expertise to grow economic opportunities and resilience – investing in clean energy, jobs and growth that are the cornerstones of stability.”
Even whilst the UK has pledged this support for the Congo however, this has come alongside sweeping cuts to foreign aid and investment by the UK. It had already been reportedlast year that the UK government intended to cut back on foreign aid to just 0.3% of GNI, going even further than under Boris Johnson, who had merged the previous office responsible, DFID, with the Foreign Office, and potentially causing thousands of preventable deaths for AIDS victims and others - particularly coming alongside similar cuts made by the Trump administration. Then, in February, it was reported that the UK's cuts would go even further than those made under Trump, as well as those seen under any other G7 country.
"In the US, the Trump administration has made dramatic changes to the US aid architecture and curbed international aid spending; but Congress has demonstrated awillingness to push back on the deepest of cuts, projecting continued support for international assistance in its latest spending deal,” stated Ian Mitchell, co-director of the Europe programme at the Center for Global Development. "In the UK, however, parliamentarians have so far offered very little resistance to plans to implement very steep cuts.”
The UK is expected to cut Official Development Assistance (ODA) by around 27% in 2026-27, compared with cuts of around 23% in US development spending. Groups such as Bond, the UK network of aid organisations, have raised concerns not only around the devastating impact such cuts are likely to have on millions of marginalized and vulnerable people and communities around the world, but also about how this will affect the UK's international image and reputation, as it brings with it a rapid shrinking of the UK's global footprint.
Also among the areas to be cut are the UK's investments in climate protection around the developing world, in spite of assurances by the government that they would be keeping to commitments on climate aid.
These have included cuts to the £100 million Biodiverse Landscapes Fund, designed to protect ecosystems both in Africa and elsewhere, and to their commitments to International Climate Finance (ICF); aimed at assisting poorer countries stricken by climate change, providing such countries with assistance in cutting greenhouse emissions and protecting nature, and which are set to be cut by a fifth - dropping from over £11 to £9 billion over the next five years.
Other programs being hit by budget cuts include the Global Plastic Action Partnership, Global Fund for Coral Reefs, and the Ocean Community Empowermentand Nature Programme (OCEAN). Also reportedly in jeopardy is the £500 million Blue Planet Fund, which was set up in response to concerns raised around the marine environment following the release of David Attenborough's landmark Blue Planet series.
The exact levels of cuts to be made by the government on climate aid have not yet been revealed, with little solid data on this having been produced since 2020. What little has been released has come through Freedom of Information requests, but the information they have provided has nevertheless raised deep concerns from NGOs and other groups working to protect the environment.
Adrian Gahan, co-founder of the Nature Finance Tracker, the body responsible for submitting the FOI requests, stated that “it’spretty clear that the government is preparing to cut a lot of funding. They haven’t announced it yet, and we would like them to assure us that that is not going to be the case.”
“The ocean is the least funded of all of the 14 UN Sustainable Development Goals, despite being the most important ecosystem for sustaining all life onEarth,” stated Blue Marine Foundation CEO Clare Brook. “It would be extremely short-sighted of the government to cut funding that is supporting people and nature across Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific and Latin America. I urge Yvette Cooper and Emma Reynolds not to let this happen.”
The government had previously stated that the cuts it is making are necessary as part of its increased defence commitments, in light of crises in Ukraine and Iran. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has pledged the biggest increase in defence spending “since the Cold War.” Critics have argued however, that making these cuts from the UK's wider international commitments will only worsen the kind of instability that the UK is currently facing internationally.
“Rachel Reeves said she wants to protect families from turbulence beyond our borders. But the way the Government is slashing international funding to protect climate and nature does the opposite,” stated Amy McDonnell, Co-Director of Zero Hour, a campaign group calling for the implementation of the Climate and Nature Bill, which would seek to ensure the UK keeps to its aims to bring down climate emissions and its wider international commitments on the environment. “If the Government recognises that ecosystem collapse is a national security threat, why cut the very funding that helps prevent it?”
Concerns have also been raised about how much of what the UK is giving in aid is actually helping people abroad. A watchdog reported earlier this week that as much as a fifth of the UK's current aid budget is in fact going to support refugees and asylum seekers who are already based within the UK itself, taking away from the government's overseas commitments.
The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) has accused the UK aid budget of lacking clear priorities, and has been focused more on hitting specific targets rather than implementing clear development goals. The ICAI has called for serious reform of how aid is delivered, with a formal separation between the costs of supporting refugees and wider foreign aid costs.
“It’s wrong that aid earmarked for humanitarian disasters is being spent by the Home Office on empty hotel rooms here in the UK,” stated Adrian Lovett, UK executive director of the ONE Campaign. “At a time when the UK aid budget has already been slashed to the bone, every pound should be spent with a relentless focus on impact for the world’s most disadvantaged people.”
Baroness Chapman has emphasized that the proposed cuts of aid to 0.3% of expenditure will be a key part of this prioritization of how aid is allocated.
“In our aid spend, we need to prioritise, be more efficient, and focus on impact above all else,” she stated. “We have to get the best value for money – for the UK taxpayer, and for the people we are trying to help.” She has emphasized an approach of giving countries more control to take charge of their own futures, stating that Britain should be providing “partnership, not paternalism.”
